Sri Krishnaiah S N vs The Deputy Commissioner on 22 July, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Krishnaiah S N vs The Deputy Commissioner on 22 July, 2011

Bench: K.L.Manjunath

Eﬁ rag axgg saga? a? KANATAA AT Baxgagagg
§§TEE EH13 $53 22" gay 9? svzy, 2$11 ;

BEEGRE

$33 EON*BLE Mr. JGSTICE K.Lw Mgx;ﬁ§g%$' " "k

REX? PETETEQR Ne.2256?§23z§'§3M§§}C;ivﬁxx
EETWEEN: »T

S,&,Krishnaiah ﬁfe §ara$;mhaiah, 'Av

65 years; ?he President, >_ u ."

$hiia Karnataka La¢ar&Sangha"g

{Regd.}; AmbabhavanifEeva;aya;," 

§0kalpuri Mutt, Ladpm:i{»7j _ %f,  

Sira Tewn, Tumkur mist; r ,L';; =g= ygyzwzomgg

{By Advacaie;§ti,$}§r$ka%b SEéﬁﬁy}

1.

?hej§epu£fUQQﬁmi$$£Qner, Tumkur'Qi$t§,fTumkt;g,

2. The Ta$$ildar;ASira:Tqa, Tumkug Dist:"V :W_3}.$?§w§én§egv'Murthy 3/5 ,'»R}T,RaQanna¢ $2 years;

".Rmbe&ka; Beéﬁif Siza;

?mmkar'Bi$t» VW,_'£, The~A§$t, Commisgicnerf g nﬁ@&h§giri Tq., aﬁV§umkuz 915:2 :6 RS§€%K§TS {Smt,She&la Krishna, gag for Rwigﬁ & 4; ._'w*{Aévacata Sri.MaAnand Kumar far RM3) 1? N;

'*5 fhis §etiti0n ig fiieﬁ under Rrts.22§ & 22? 0f the Constituticﬁ cf India ta call for resorﬁs which ultimately rasuited in passing of the impugned arder dated 26.6w2GlQ Vida Annexure~E, quash the order Annexurewﬂ dateé 26.632816 passed by Rml anﬁ set agide the erdar Annaxureex dated 24.3.2Gl0 made by the Raspondenty§nﬁ"élsq to direct Rwi to utilize the amouh§=,inﬂ accardance with law after approval 0f_t§e"p1an by" the Competent authority Vgnd di£e£$f.Rw2_ ta"

aucticn the termine 0f the tem§l@a§n;a¢&§:§ancé with law, This Petiticn is aomigg on.f3r*§rélim;nary» hearing in B~Group this day;.the*Ccurt made the failowingz m -_-- '= .:§ -.;:§. 33 R» :4 _ ?etitioner is qneétionimgﬁtﬁéfdrder §assed by Rwij De§ﬁﬁyH €Qmmi$§ionerf Tumkurf as per Annaxure%§_ .dﬁté& ' 2§?$¢2G1Q accepting the pro§osal_$ent*b§ thé ?ahsildar, Sira ta release are gag sf R3:&;§§,§Q@fm tmwards rénavatian G5 the téwpig ﬁg n§mé-ﬁokalpuri Sri Bhavanamma tamgle, " _$;h Eeazﬁ the eounsal far the yartieg' 3,'g The main grgevanae 3f the petitianer is :ﬁhat RME wha is nathing ta dc with the templa in quastiam is drawing the amaunt cf §S.4;§5;QG3f"

unﬁer the gnise Qf renovation 0ﬁ[ the temple. Aacaxding ta them, a civil suit is "§éﬁ§§ng befare um Civil Judge {ax-San'),«~_.'::"$;:x§a "'% G.SwEa.39/261$ filed km? the~petitiané£ Q§a£n$ﬁ R»3¢ According ta him, an é$d§£ af §£atus:q¢§_ has been granted dirécﬁing .%he',§a$ﬁiés$ to maintain status que; IQ Vgeﬁgﬁf £ﬁe_§éme! he contends that amount d£"RsJ§§9§;@Qﬁf~ as ardered by the Tah$ild%r an§ §§pu§yECQmmi$sioner weuld be miswusad bf ﬁ"3{ £§é:$fdre, present petition is filed"tc.éﬁaSﬁ§Annexuzé¥B:

4¢ Haviﬁq hea£&*£héx§§ﬁnsel for the garties, in view"Qf €he §éndéncy af the suitgas thare is agdﬁsgﬁée Eﬁeﬁﬁaen the yarties in regazﬁ tn the méraggmnﬁﬁ GE wthe temple, the ﬁispute betweén V :he gétiaioﬁér and Rw3 has to be settled at tha §it3tj iﬁﬁtance in a civil aourtg Aftar the :$étﬁZeﬁent§ it is far tma ﬁuzrai Tahsildar' er tha ﬁaputy Qemmissianer ta zelaase tha amcunt in terms of the decree cf the triai CQEEE' 5, with the abave directians, thig y$titianfisW§u} dispo$ed of, "1;;.,é:}:'s2's--: 3.,

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court