Writ Petition No. 16492 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.16492 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RANGANATHA PUJAR S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS MAIN PRIEST, SRI MALLAMMADEVI TEMPLE, R/A DEVELAPURA POST, KONTHIHALLI, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572138. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. JAHNAVI M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB DIVISON, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572101. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR 5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KORA P.S, KORA, TUMKUR TALUK AND TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572128. 6. SRI. R. MALLAIAH, AGED : MAJOR, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, KONTHIHALLI GRAMA, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572138. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RP NO.219/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE- H IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RA(A)(TU) - 790/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2022 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN SUM.RRT(DIS)CR- 22/2019-20 VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO EXTENT OF THE LAND IS CONCERNED RESTRICTING THE LAND TO 7.8 GUNTAS AS AGAINST 20 GUNTAS OF THE TEMPLE SRI MALLAMMA DEVI SITUATED AT KONTI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 in RP No. 219 of 2022 (Annexure-H), the order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No. 3, and the order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent No. 4, in respect of the subject land. The petitioner, inter-alia, seeks a direction against respondent No.5 to refrain from interfering with the civil rights of the parties. 2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner claims to be the hereditary priest of Mallamma Devi Temple located in Develapura village. It is further stated that respondent No.6 claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 19/2, measuring 05 acres and 10 guntas, situated at Konthihalli, Hottemallayanapalyna, Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District. Additionally, it is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR stated that the temple is situated within the vicinity of the said 05 acres and 10 guntas, extending to about 20 guntas in Sy. No.19/2. Respondent No. 6 was a government servant and is now retired. 3. It is further stated in the petition that the temple is situated within 20 guntas of land, as per the RTC extracts produced at Annexure-A. Respondent No. 6 has filed OS No. 1568 of 2011 and OS No. 548 of 2011 against the petitioner and one Sri Doddaiah. Both suits were dismissed by the competent Civil Court as per the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure-E). It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner assailed the order passed in MR No. 8 of 2010-11 dated 29.06.2011 before respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 6 has challenged the order passed in MR No. 10 of 2008- 11 dated 29.06.2011 before respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3, by order dated 14.08.2018, partly allowed the appeal and directed respondent No. 4 to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR conduct a survey and submit the report accordingly. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 after conducting the survey, passed an order on 20.09.2022 (Annexure-G) and directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of subject land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed RP No. 219 of 2022 before respondent No. 2, challenging the order dated 14.08.2018. Respondent No. 2 dismissed the Revision Petition vide order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure-H). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Jahnavi M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekar, Additional Government Advocate respondent State. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the priest in the temple in question which is situated in the land in question and the respondent No.6 had admitted the fact of existence of the temple in 20 guntas in Sy No.19/2c and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR therefore, it is contended that, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure- H requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 6. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits that, petitioner not being the owner of the land in question nor an interested party, has no locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 14.08.2018 in RA No. 790 of 2017 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, admittedly the petitioner claiming right over the property in question by stating that he is the priest in a temple which is situated in the land in question belong to the respondent No6. No document has been produced before the respondent-authority to prove that, land has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20707 WP No. 16492 of 2025 HC-KAR been gifted by the respondent No.6 in favour of the petitioner or to the temple in question. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. Therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly arrived at a conclusion to dismiss the challenge made by the petitioner and accordingly, passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 in R.P.No.219 of 2022 (Annexure-H), which is just and proper. In that view of the matter, there is no perversity in the order passed by the respondent No.2.
Decision
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46