KADUVEERA MADA THAMMADI Vs. G P MADATHIMMADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments, Bangalore, allowing the revision petitions presented by Respondents 1 and 2 and setting aside the order of me Executive Officer (Deputy Commissioner) in which their right to perform pooja at Mahadeswaraswamy Temple, Kollegal Taluk, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case in so tar as it is necessary and sufficient tor the disposal of these two Writ Petitions, are as follows :The petitioner in the first Writ Petition filed an application before respondent 3, the Executive Officer of Sri Mahadeswaraswamy Temple, praying for a declaration that he was entitled to perform pooja in the temple for a period of two months in a year. The claim was made on the basis of hereditary archakship. The claim was that originally the right to pooja was secured by one Annasalamma and the family was later divided into three branches and, as a result, respondents 1 and 2 had the right to perform pooja in the temple for four months each and the branch to which the petitioners belonged had the right to perform pooja in the temple tor a period of three months and again there were two branches in the branch to which the petitioners belonged and accordingly the petitioner in W. P. No. 22051 of 1980 was entitled to perform pooja for two months and the other petitioner in W.P. No. 22052 of 1980 was entitled to perform pooja for one month. The Executive Officer held an enquiry, recorded evidence and made an order on 17-9-1979. His finding was in favour of the petitioners. He declared that the petitioner in W.P. No. 22051 of 1980 had the right to perform pooja for two months and the petitioner in the other Writ Petition was entitled to perform pooja for one month. The operative portion of the order reads :

(3.) Against this order, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner, respondent-4, under Section 18(1) of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). The Commissioner held, agreeing with the contention of the respondents 1 and 2, that the Executive Officer (Deputy Commissioner under the Act) had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under any of the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, these two Writ Petitions are presented.