DHANRAJ JAIN Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was permitted to construct a Kalyana Mantapa on the first floor of the existing guest house of Sri Ramanjaneyaswamy Temple, Tegur Village, Chickmagalur Taluk. In furtherance of the said order, an agreement was executed by the first respondent with the petitioner consisting of certain conditions for construction of the Kalyana Mantapa. The Kalyana Mantapa has to be constructed in terms of the aforesaid plan at Annexure-B. However, the permission to construct the Kalyana Mantapa was withdrawn by order at Annexure-X, dated 14-10-2014 mainly on the ground that petitioner has failed to put up the construction within the period stipulated in the agreement. It is also relevant to note here that the Assistant Archaka of the temple is residing with his family in a house belonging to the temple situated within the campus of the temple. The Agama Pandit has submitted his report as per Annexure-G opining that the Assistant Archaka cannot reside within the campus of the temple with his family members. On the basis of the said report, the Competent Authority had directed the Assistant Archaka to vacate the premises. Finally, the Endowment Commissioner has passed an order as per Annexure-K, dated 16-8-2013 directing the Deputy Commissioner to evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in his occupation to enable the petitioner to put up construction of the Kalyana Mantapa. This order has not been implemented by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order at Annexure-X, dated 14-10-2014 and also for a direction to the respondents to implement the order at Annexures-K and M and evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in question.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Perusal of the order at Annexure-X would indicate that permission granted to the petitioner to construct the Kalyana Mantapa was withdrawn on the ground that he has failed to construct Kalyana Mantapa within the period prescribed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not put up construction of the Kalyana Mantapa because the respondent-authorities have failed to evict the Assistant Archaka from the premises in question, which was causing obstruction. Be that as it may. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court undertaking to complete the construction of the Kalyana Mantapa in all respects and hand over the same to the temple on or before 31-8-2015 at his cost. Therefore, it is just and proper to permit him to construct the Kalyana Mantapa as undertaken by him in the affidavit.