Dismissed

Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple v. the Joint Director of

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022WP/3116/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an entry in the Enquiry Register regarding property ownership between two temples. The Court held that ownership disputes are for the Civil Court and the survey authority was justified in rejecting a 45-year-old belated challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court; the entries in the Enquiry Register were left to abide by a future civil decree if secured.

Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple Vs the Joint Director of — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.3116/2013(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PANDURANGA SWAMY TEMPLE NO.40, SNATHUSAPET BANGALORE-560 053 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI. K.G. VENKATESH S/O SRI. GIRISA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H. JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY SOUTH ZONE K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

THE ENQUIRY OFFICER CITY SURVEY NO.2 K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY NO.2 K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

SRI. RAMANJANEYA SWAMY TEMPLE CTS NO.2405, NO.4B

¶16

¶17

PURNASHESHACHAR LANE GARADI MANE, CHICKPET BANGALORE-560 053 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE

¶18

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER CHICKPET SUB-DIVISION WARD NO.109, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE-560 001

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SESHU .V, HCGP FOR R1,R2 AND R3, SRI. R. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT AND ORDER DT:20.7.2012, PASSED BY THE R1 AND ALSO THE ORDER DT:7.5.1973, PASSED BY THE R1 IN RESPECT OF CITY SY.NO.2405 OF LA 81A, CHICKPET LOCAL AREA, BANGALORE CITY, VIDE ANN-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

An entry made in the Enquiry Register in the year 1973-74 was challenged by filing a revision in the year 201112 before the Joint Director of Land Records.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner was aggrieved by the entry in the

¶27

Enquiry Register, which was to the following effect:

¶28

“This is the property belonging to Sri.Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple. This is the property is called locally crashed Gadhikhane. The temple is managed by private committee by five members of S.S.K. community. The title of the property is confirmed in the name of Sri Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple.”

¶29

As could be seen from the above extract, it has been stated that the property belonged to Sri Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple and was locally called “GadhiKhane” and the temple was being managed by the Private Committee of S.S.K. Community. It was also stated that the title of the property was confirmed in the name of Sri Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple.

¶30

The petitioner in this petition is Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple and according to the petitioner, the property in question actually belongs to it and not to Sri Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple.

¶31

¶32

In my view, the question as to whether the property belongs to Sri Ramanjaneya Swamy Temple or Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple is a question which has to be adjudicated and decided only in the Civil Court.

¶33

Petitioner is admittedly challenging an entry made in the Enquiry Register of the Survey Records about 45 years ago. Having regard to the fact that the entries have stood for the past 45 years, it would not be appropriate to entertain a belated challenge to the same and the Joint Director of Land Records was, therefore, justified in rejecting the revision.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a Sale Deed in respect of the property in question which indicates that the property actually belongs to Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple.

¶35

It is to be stated here that this assertion will have to be

¶36

pleaded and proved in an appropriately framed suit and cannot be the subject of adjudication in an enquiry proceedings by the survey authorities. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶37

¶38

It is needless to state that in the event the petitioner were to secure a decree in the Civil Court in its favour, the entries in the Enquiry Register shall abide by the said decree.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PKS

Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple v. the Joint Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Panduranga Swamy Temple v. the Joint Director of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Adarsha Polutry Farm Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharadhamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt Narasamma Vs the Principal Secretary

Sheena Poojary Vs Land Tribunal Kundapur

Sri Papanna @ Muniyappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri C Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka