Disposed

Athrijalu Sree Mahalingeshwara Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024WP/46810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed to quash notifications regarding the rights of legal representatives of the hereditary trustee of a temple, reserving the matter for the Zilla Dharmika Parishath to decide under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty reserved to raise contentions before Zilla Dharmika Parishath; Parishath directed to dispose within three months.

Athrijalu Sree Mahalingeshwara Temple Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:31155 WP No. 46810 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 46810 OF 2016 (GM-RC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ATHRIJALU SREE MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE KOKRADI, POST: KOKRADI-574 242, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, BY ITS SOLE HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SMT. LALITHA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, W/O. LATE B. DEVARAJA AJRI, ATHRIJAL HOUSE, POST: KOKRADI-574 242, BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT IN KARNATAKA, MALAI MAHADESHWARA BUILDING, ALUR VENKATAR RAO ROAD, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560 018.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:31155 WP No. 46810 of 2016

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE-575 001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S COMPOUND, MANGALORE-575 001.

¶18

ZILLA DHARMIKA PARISHATH

¶19

MAIDAN ROAD

¶20

CLOCK TOWER CIRCLE

¶21

MANGALORE - 575 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N. HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DATED 16.06.2016 AT ANNEX-A ISSUED BY R-4; QUASH NOTIFICATION DATED 11.07.2016 AT ANNEX-B ISSUED BY R-4 AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:31155 WP No. 46810 of 2016

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Sri. Chandranath Ariga K, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue involved in this matter is with regard to determination of rights of legal representatives of Smt. Lalitha who was the sole hereditary trustee/ hereditary Mukthesar of petitioner trust.

¶30

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that determination/adjudication of the rights of hereditary mukthesar shall be made by the respondent No.5 in terms of Section 25 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 2011 and that the matter in this regard is already pending consideration before the respondent No.5.

¶31

In that view of the matter, reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions and grounds raised in this petition before the respondent No.5 seeking determination of their rights, petition is disposed of.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:31155 WP No. 46810 of 2016

¶34

The respondent No.5 shall dispose of the matter after affording sufficient opportunities to the parties concerned within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶36

RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Athrijalu Sree Mahalingeshwara Temple v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athrijalu Sree Mahalingeshwara Temple v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri. v. Gopalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Krishna Murthy Vs M Manohar

Smt Padma Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Mrs Anitha N Vs Mrs N Sunanda Bai

Sri. Prakash Vs Sri. Muniyappa

Sri. Prasanna C Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Op Societies