The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition that sought a ‘Mutt’ status under the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, for a religious institution in Nampally, Hyderabad, and upheld earlier government orders designating the same as an age-old Hanuman temple. Justice K Sarath’s judgment, dated January 9, concluded that the petitioner came before the court with “unclean hands”.
The petitioner, Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt, represented by its Mahant Rambharose Das Chela, challenged a 2013 government order that identified the institution as a temple rather than a Mutt. The petitioner argued that the institution was established by Guru Mahant Mohan Das Ji, who was the jagirdar and sole Mahant of the said Mutt and Sri Kyalikadas Mutt, Begum Bazar, in 1936, and contained sacred Samadhis. He contended that the earlier Mahants were recognised by the Endowments department just as he was recognised in 1995, since when he has been discharging his duties as a Mahant of the Mutt.
‘Ulterior motive to grab temple property’
The Government Pleader for the Endowments Department submitted that the institution is an age-old Hanuman temple established by Sri Rama Bhakta Samajam in 1937. He submitted that the institution was designated as a temple and not as a mutt in the Muntakab (statement of endowment) of 1936. He also submitted that Sri Ram Bharose Das was mentioned as ‘Mutawalli’ and ‘Mutawalli-Trustee’, meaning the person appointed by the Endowment Department for management of the property, and hence the petitioner was only a trustee and not a Mahant. He further submitted that there were no Samadhis in the temple.
The private respondents contended that the institution was wrongly shown as Sri Ram Hanuman Mutt instead of Sri Ram Hanuman Deval and that “it was intentionally done with the connivance of revenue authorities with ulterior motive to grab the temple property”.
‘Cannot now claim the institution as a Mutt’
Justice K Sarath, after hearing all submissions, took note of the earlier round of litigation where the petitioner questioned the memo issued by the Endowments department dated 2008 declaring the institution as a temple. The said writ petition was allowed in June 2011 by setting aside the memo and remitting the matter back to the principal secretary, Endowments department, for reconsideration.
The court also noted that the petitioner did not challenge the Gazette notification declaring the institution as a Hanuman temple in September 1989, and that he was recognised as Mahant by the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, only in May 1995. The court agreed that the then Assistant Commissioner of Endowments had recognised the petitioner as Mahant, merely based on his representation. The court emphasised that the petitioner “cannot now claim the institution as a mutt” without challenging the Gazette notification.
The court also recorded that the judgments relied on by both parties have no relevance to the facts of the case “as the writ petitioner has taken different stands before this Court in earlier proceedings and in the instant writ petition.”
Story continues below this ad
Further, it noted, “the documents filed by the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition and in the instant writ petition and also the original record are not tallying with the prayers in the Revision Petition. It shows that the writ petitioner came before this Court with unclean hands and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.”
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
