A writ petition challenged a State notification declaring a family-managed temple as a notified temple under Section 23 of the 1997 Endowments Act. The court found no material showing it was not a public temple, held hereditary trustees' management rights protected by Section 25A, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9195 WP No. 78743 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.78743 OF 2013 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)
ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO. RD 87 MUAABI 2012 DATED:29/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT SL.NO.86, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned notification bearing No.RD 87 MUAABI 2012 dated 29.09.2012 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C thereby, declaring the petitioner No.1/Devastan as a notified temple under Section 23 of The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1997’ for brevity).
learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State.
hereditary trust of Aramani family of Chinchali and it is purely administrated, controlled and managed by the members of the Aramani family since time immemorial. Petitioner No.2 is trustee of the said institution and he is looking after the institution as a managing trustee. Petitioner No.1/Devastan to substantiate that they have got hereditary rights are placing reliance on the PTR issued by the Charity Commissioner, which is documented at Annexure-A. The petitioner’s claimed that from the earning of agricultural land and donations, the temple is maintained and the income generated from the donations is spent for upkeepment and maintenance of the temple.
sectors visit the Devastan. The Act 1997 is intended to bring about uniform law to provide for regulation of all charitable endowments and Hindu religious institutions in the State. Section 23 of the Act 1997 enables the State Government to declare a public temple as a notified temple. The fact that petitioner No.1/Devastan was registered under BPT Act and being a religious institution, it was well within the authority of respondent No.1/State to notify the temple under Section 23 of the Act 1997. Though petitioners have asserted and claimed that it is a family Devastan, except PTR sheet, no documents are produced to substantiate that it is not a public temple and public at large are not visiting the temple. The impugned notification does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
have no right to manage the Devastan. Section 25A of the Act 1997 clearly provides protection to hereditary trustees and the State has no power to constitute a committee of management in respect of notified institutions, managed exclusively by hereditary trustees. Section 25 of the Act 1997 clearly contemplates power of management, shall vest in such hereditary trustees.
and declared as public temple, the scope of judicial review is very narrow. I do not find any substantial materials, which would warrant review at the hands of this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a temple registered under the BPT Act and managed by hereditary trustees could be notified as a public temple under Section 23 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endo
Whether notification under Section 23 curtails the rights of hereditary trustees to exclusively manage the Devastan.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Basaveshwar Dev. Sri. Mallikarjuna Dev, Sri. Siddalingaswami Gaddigi of Chinchali (trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act)
Sri. Chandrashekar s/o. Mahadevappa Aramani
The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Revenue and Religious Endowment
Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments
Deputy Commissioner, Gadag District
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
