Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jaladigere Chikkamma And Doddamma ... vs The Tahsildar on 7 January, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 15339 OF 2020 (GM-R/C)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 11261 OF 2020 (GM-R/C)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24043 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 29125 OF 2023 (GM-R/C)
IN WP No. 15339/2020
BETWEEN:
1. J.G. RAMANNA
S/O LATE GIRIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
Digitally 2. B NALINA
signed by W/O LATE J B NARAYANA
SUMA B N
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 3. J V KRISHNAMURTHY
KARNATAKA
S/O VENKATAIAH @ MADDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
4. J K JAYARAMA
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
5. KEMPAMMA
W/O LATE RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
6. G SRINIVAS
S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
7. THIMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE MALLAMMARA DASANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
8. J B VENKATESH
S/O PATEL VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
9. J B VENKATEGOWDA
S/O LATE SANNABYATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
10. HUCHCHAPPA
S/O LATE KURI THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
11. MARIYAPPA
S/O LATE HUCHCHAPPARA PALANNAR VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
12. GOVINDAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
13. PUTTASWAMI
S/O LATE KURI PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
14. GIRIYAPPA
S/O LATE BYATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
15. BETAIAH
S/O LATE KODALLI VENKATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
16. VENKATESH J T
S/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
17. HOMBALAMMA
D/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
18. J B MUDDABETEGOWDA
S/O LATE BETAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
19. MANJULA
W/O LATE G V DASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
20. PUTTASWAMI
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
21. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
22. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O LATE KANI DASANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
23. GOVINDAIAH
S/O LATE KIVUDA THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
24. J G VENKATESH
S/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
25. SHIVARAJA
S/O LATE KENGA BETAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
26. J K MAHALINGAIAH
S/O KARITHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
27. ARAVAMMA
W/O LATE SANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
28. BYATAGOWDA
S/O BETAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
29. CHALUVARAJA
S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
30. K KUMARA
S/O KENGA GIRIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
31. CHIKKAIAH
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
32. G MANJUNATH
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
33. CHANDRA
S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
34. THIMMARAYAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATAGOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
35. J D SRINIVASA
S/O LATE DODDAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
36. J V VENKATESH
S/O LATE PATEL VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
37. DANIYAKUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
38. BALAKRISHNA N.,
S/O NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
39. J S YOGESH KUMAR
S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
40. J THIMMA RAJU
S/O LATE JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YADIYUR HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU DIST-572 142.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI)
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT
3RD FLOOR, MALE MAHADESHWARA BHAVANA
A V ROAD, CHAMRAJPET
BANGALORE-560 018.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DC OFFICE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT
TUMAKURU-572 102.
4. TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKAURU-572 130.
5. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION, KUNIGAL
KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU-572 111
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH ORDER IN NO.KAM.E 36 MOO.AA.BI 2020, DATED
24.07.2020 PASSED BY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA/R-1 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
IN WP NO. 11261/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND
DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST
WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED
UNDER THE TRUST ACT,
JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY - SRI KRISHNAPPA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH A/W
SMT. MANJULA DEVI, M.G & SRI.SANJAY KUMAR.K.N,
ADVOCATES FOR
SRI. MOHAMAD JAMAL SAIT, ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND MUZRAI
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MUZRAI DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD
CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE - 560 018.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR - 572130.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.
5. THE SURVEYOR
ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF
THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
KUNIGAL
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130.
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 24TH JULY 2020; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO PASS ANY ORDER TILL THE
DISPOSAL OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN O.S.NO.11/2012
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE JR.
DIVISION COURT, AT KUNIGAL.
IN WP NO. 24043/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA
TEMPLE TRUST
AT JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 562 123
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE KARITHIMMAIAH
AGED 65 YEARS
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH A/W
SMT. MANJULA DEVI, M.G & SRI.SANJAY KUMAR.K.N,
ADVOCATES FOR
SRI. B N SHIVANNA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
KUNIGAL - 572 130.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR SUB DIVISION
TUMKUR - 562 123.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR - 562 123.
4. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
MUZRAI DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR - 562 123.
6. THE MANAGER
STATE BANK OF MYSORE
NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA
YEDIUR BRANCH, YEDIUR
KUNIGAL TALUK.
7. THE MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK
NOW CANARA BANK
NAGASANDRA BRANCH
YEDIUR, KUNIGAL TALUK.
8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
KUNIGAL SUB DIVISION
HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
OF JALADIGER VILLAGE
YEDIUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL - 572 130.
9. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUNIGAL CIRCLE
KUNIGAL - 572 130.
10. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAW AND ORDER
AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
HAVING JURISDICTION OF YEDIUR CIRCLE
AMRUTHUR
KUNIGAL TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 5, 8 TO 10,
R6, R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE R1 TAHSILDAR, KUNIGAL TO HAND OVER THE
ACCOUNT BEARING NO.00000064194968494 OF STATE
BANK OF INDIA, YEDIYUR BRANCH TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR OR TO THE TEMPLE TRUSTEE AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 29125/2023
BETWEEN:
THE JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND
DODDAMMA TEMPLE
AT : JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL - 572130
REPTD BY THE SECRETARY
SRI. KRISHNAPPA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT. MANJULA DEVI M.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
KUNIGAL - 572 130.
2. THE REGISTRAR JUDICIAL
OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
3. THE REGISTRAR
SIRASTHEDAR
ATTACHED TO PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT JUDGE
TUMKUR - 572 101.
4. THE ASST., REGISTRAR
ATTACHED TO CIVIL JUDGE
SENIOR DIVISION COURT
KUNIGAL - 572 130.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR - 572 101.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMKUR - 572 101.
7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE ATTACHED TO
KUNIGAL POLICE STATION
KUNIGAL - 572 130.
8. SRI J.K. SHIVANNA
S/O KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
9. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O BYATAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT GURUKRUPA NO 346
11TH MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 050.
10. SRI G SRINIVAS
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
R/AT JALADIGERE VILLAGE
YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR - DISTRICT.
11. THE SYNIDCATE BANK PRESENTLY
CANARA BANK
NAGASANDRA, YEDIYUR HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
12. THE STATE BANK OF MYSORE
PRESENTLY SBI,
YEDIYUR BRANCH
NO. 6, SIDDALINGESHWARNAGAR
KUNIGAL TLAUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R10;
SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. B.P. RADHA., AGA FOR R1, R5, R6 & R7;
R3, R9, R11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. MANJUNATHA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. K. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R10)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-2 TO TAKE THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION OF
PETITIONER TEMPLE OR ACT AS A RECEIVER TO THE
PETITIONER TEMPLE TRUST VIDE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.06.2023 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
ORAL ORDER
These writ petitions pertain to a religious institution known and called as "Jaladigeremma (Sri.Chikkamma and Doddamma) Temple Trust" situated at Jaladigere Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, on a property bearing Sy.No.128/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas.
2. Certain disputes arose between the families belonging to Vokkaliga and Kuruba Community's of the locality concerning the aforesaid temple resulting in filing of suits and counter suits. A suit in O.S.No.16/1970 had been filed by one D.Venkategowda and others which culminated in the judgment and order dated 14.07.2005 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.1012/1990 in which it has been held that the aforesaid religious institution is a private institution.
3. Things stood thus, the respondent-state has passed an order dated 24.07.2020 in purported exercise of its power under Sections 42 and 43 of the Hindu Religious Institution Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 declaring the aforesaid temple to be a notified institution. It is this order which is put in question in these batch of writ petitions.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in
W.P.No.15339/2020, submits that the primary grievance of the petitioners therein is that no opportunity of being heard is provided by the respondent-state before issuing the order at Annexure-A resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits since there is a categorical finding by the trial Court and this Court in its order dated 14.07.2005, holding the temple in question to be a private temple, the respondent authority without providing any opportunity to the petitioners herein could not have passed the impugned order.
5. Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.24043/2022 after arguing the matter for sometime on instructions seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition. Memo filed to that effect is placed on record. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
6. As regards the petitioners in W.P.No.11261/2020 and W.P.No.29125/2023, their only grievance is with regard to the exclusion of existing trustees from the management and affairs of the aforesaid institution. Learned counsel submits that
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
taking over of the management and affairs of the institution by the respondent-state without the existing trustees having any role in its administration would cause them great prejudice. He however submits that if a direction is issued to the respondent- state to ensure the safety of the movable and immovable properties of the institution, the purpose of the petition would be served.
7. Heard. Perused the records.
8. Though petitioners in W.P.No.15339/2020 have raised the question with regard to authority and jurisdiction of the respondent-state to issue an order as per Annexure-A in the light of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16/1970 confirmed by this Court in RSA No.1012/1990. Necessary to note that in the said RSA No.1012/1990 this Court had framed following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether the Government is empowered under Section 17 or 18 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 (the `Act' for short) to pass an order contrary to the finding in the enquiry report of the Muzrai officer exercising appellate power in declaring temples in question as public temples?
(2) The effect of repealing of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 and the enactment of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER Endowments Act, 1997 (`the new Act' for short) to the present proceedings?"
While answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law this Court at paragraph 18, has held as under:
"18. In view of the above discussion while answering the substantial questions of law raised, it has to be held that the lower Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and it has come to the wrong conclusion in holding that the temples are public temples. Further the Government committed an error in acting upon the report of the Muzrai Officer to formulate the scheme and for directing the Muzrai Officer to formulate the scheme and submit the same for its sanction as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. When once the temples are held to be private temples and it is not covered under the definition as noted above, necessarily the Government ought to have proceeded based on the report of the Muzrai Officer. Although it contained a provision regarding mismanagement of the funds of the temples under the scheme, the earlier Act was not wide enough to cover such mismanagement. In that view of the matter, I have to hold that substantial question of law raised regarding application of Section 17 and 18 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act to the temples and acting thereon by the Government is not permissible under law and the same has to be answered in favour of the appellants. As noted above, the effect of repealing the old Act, The Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1927 and on the enactment of the new Act i.e., The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 itself provide for a saving clause under Section 78 whereby applying Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, Acts were not saved. However, as the new Act is wide enough to cover the mismanagement of any of the institutions which are either maintained by the Public or private and if there is a mismanagement by notification or by declaration by the Government, such institution could be taken over or declared as public institution by appointing the trustees or managers as provided under Sections 23 and 42 of the Act. Such act would be contemplated by the Government in future if it comes to the conclusion that there is a mismanagement. In view of the above, while answering the substantial questions of law raised in favour of the appellants, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the lower appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court is reversed thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. No costs".
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
9. Thus, as noted above, this Court had categorically observed that if in the event of respondent-state finding it necessary, it can initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Act, 1997. That finding and observation has remained unchallenged and attained finality.
10. The order impugned proceeds on the premise that a dispute between the two groups of the village had necessitated issuance of notices under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act calling upon the parties concerned to show cause which remained unanswered, resulting in a report being called for by the concerned authorities. Consideration of the material, prompted the respondent-state to pass the order impugned in this petition. There is considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they have not been given opportunity of being heard before the respondent- state coming to that conclusion.
11. In response, learned Additional Government Advocate pointing out to unnumbered paragraph 4 of the order
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
submits that as many as four notices have been issued and served on the parties concerned and since they have not bothered to respond, the authorities have proceeded to pass the order based on the report received, as such no error or illegality can be found in respondent-state passing the impugned order.
12. On a query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit in unison that presently the aforesaid religious institution is under the management, administration and supervision of Tahsildar, Kunigal. It is further submitted that as and when necessary the said Tahsildar is seeking permission of this Court.
13. Be that as it is. The respondent-state having invoked the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 as found at impugned document at Annexure-A, the only ground which requires consideration is whether the petitioners in these petitions to be provided an opportunity of being heard by the respondent- state.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
14. Considering the chequered history of this institution, and also the claims and rival claims, this Court deems it appropriate that parties be relegated to respondent No.1, who shall after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard including consideration of their claim of the institution being a private entity, pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.
15. Parties are at liberty to submit and make their representation and furnish such documents if so advised, which shall be taken into consideration and a detailed speaking order in this regard shall be passed. Such exercise shall be undertaken within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
16. The impugned order is kept in abeyance till consideration of representation and passing of the order as directed above.
17. It is further directed that the affairs of the institution, management and supervision of its properties both movable and immovable including cash shall be carried on and managed by the Tahsildar in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1517
WP No. 15339 of 2020
C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020
WP No. 24043 of 2022
HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER
He shall also ensure that the daily prayers, rituals and the annual festivals of the temple be carried/conducted in a peaceful and wholesome manner without giving scope for any unruly incidents.
With the above observations, writ petitions are disposed of. W.P.No.24043/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
All contentions of the parties kept open.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30