Disposed

Sri Gokarneshwara Jeernodhara Samithi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2021WP/4670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by a temple Samithi alleging protected land issues. The court noted that while a lease existed for a complex, the petition was not the forum to challenge it. Finding that a sale deed was cancelled via a prior Writ Petition and the temple name appeared in the revenue records' ownership column, the court disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition disposed of based on existing compliance and record of rights showing annulment of sale deed.

Sri Gokarneshwara Jeernodhara Samithi Vs the Deputy… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4670 OF 2018(GM-R/C-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI GOKARNESHWARA JEERNODHARA SAMITHI GOKARNESHWARA TEMPLE HARAPPANAHALLI 583131 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SRI VENKANA GOUDA S/O RUDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O JOISAVA KERI, HARAPPANAHALLI-583131 DAVANGERE DISTRICT (NOT CLAIMED ANY BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP)

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.B S MURALI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE 577101

¶14

¶15

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH, HARAPPANAHALLI DAVANAGERE 577101

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS IN KARNATAKA, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA 1^ST FLOOR, NEAR TIPPU SULTHAN PALACE CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 560018

¶17

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI GOKARNESHWARA TEMPLE HARAPANAHALLI 583131 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.VANI.H, AGA FOR R1, 3 & 4; SRI.M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1, 3, 4, TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN PROTECTING THE DEITY OF SRI GOKARNESHWARA TEMPLE, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AND ITS PROPERTIES BOTH MOVEABLE AND IMMOVEABLE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY AND DEITY OF THE SRI GOKARNESHWARA TEMPLE, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard.

This writ petition has been filed seeking the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

"1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No-1, 3, 4, to take appropriate action in protecting the deity of Sri Gokarneshwara Temple, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District and its properties both moveable and immoveable OR in the alternative, permit the petitioner to protect the property and Deity of the Sri Gokarneshwara Temple, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District.

¶28

Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to restore the name of the Temple in the revenue records and further direction to the 4^th respondent to get the sale deed dated 30.7.1997 bearing no.433/1997-98 annulled/cancelled, as executed in favour of 2^nd respondent, as to keep the records straight.

¶29

Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner on the last

¶31

date submitted that the land of Sri.Gokarneshwara Temple, Harapanahalli, Davanagere District, was restored to the temple, however, in the records, the name of the earlier

¶32

¶33

purchaser still exists, due to which, they are trying to interfere with the land of the temple and the sale deed dated 30.7.1997 is still not treated as annulled.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1, 3 and 4 was directed to seek instructions as to why the revenue records have not been updated and why the land of the temple has not been restored so far.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that she has filed the statement of objections on 7.12.2021 and in the said statement of objections Annexure-R3 has been annexed showing that the name of the temple has been restored in the revenue records.

¶36

Perusal of Annexure-R3 indicates that the name of the temple has been restored in column No.9 i.e. ownership. However, the name of the temple has not been shown in the cultivator's column i.e. 12(2). It shows that the name of Town Panchayath has been recorded in the cultivator's column. The

¶37

¶38

learned counsel for the Town Panchayath submits that the State Government has granted a lease of fifty years in favour of Town Panchayath and as per the lease agreement, the Town Panchayath has to construct the complex and share 40% of the constructed shops with the temple, but nothing has been done.

¶39

Be that as it may, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved with the grant of lease in favour of the Town Panchayath, then he will have to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. However, that cannot be considered in the present writ petition.

¶40

Insofar as sale deed dated 30.07.1997 is

¶41

concerned, it is forthcoming from the records that pursuant to the disposal of W.P.No.24836/1997, the Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn the proceedings authorising the Chief Officer of

¶42

the Town Panchayath to sell the temple land under the registered sale deed dated 30.7.1997. This factual aspect

¶43

¶44

clearly indicates that the sale deed dated 30.7.1997 stands annulled and the respondent-State has placed on record the compliance which is also forthcoming from the record of rights, produced at Annexure-R3. On perusal of the same, it is forthcoming that the temples name is duly mutated in the ownership column pertaining to Survey No.555/1. We take note of the said compliance furnished along with statement of objections.

¶45

With these observations, the writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

*alb/-

Sri Gokarneshwara Jeernodhara Samithi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gokarneshwara Jeernodhara Samithi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Vinay R Vs the Secretary

Sri. K. M. Rajashekar Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

M. Samiulla Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Roopa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Jameel Vs the State of Karnataka