J.G. Ramanna Vs Govt. of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER IN NO.KAM.E 36 MOO.AA.BI 2020, DATED 24.07.2020 PASSED BY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA/R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶84

IN WP NO. 11261/2020

¶85

BETWEEN:

¶86

SRI JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED UNDER THE TRUST ACT, JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - SRI KRISHNAPPA.

¶87

...PETITIONER

¶88

(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH A/W SMT. MANJULA DEVI, M.G & SRI.SANJAY KUMAR.K.N, ADVOCATES FOR

¶89

SRI. MOHAMAD JAMAL SAIT, ADVOCATE)

¶90

7 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

AND:

¶94

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND MUZRAI VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶95

THE COMMISSIONER MUZRAI DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018.

¶96

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572130.

¶97

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶98

THE SURVEYOR ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130.

¶99

RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶100

...RESPONDENTS

¶101

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶103

8 -

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A THE GOVERNMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 24^TH JULY 2020; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PASS ANY ORDER TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN O.S.NO.11/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISION COURT, AT KUNIGAL.

¶106

IN WP NO. 24043/2022

¶107

BETWEEN:

¶108

SRI. JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST AT JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 562 123 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE KARITHIMMAIAH AGED 65 YEARS

¶109

...PETITIONER

¶110

(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH A/W SMT. MANJULA DEVI, M.G & SRI.SANJAY KUMAR.K.N, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B N SHIVANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶111

AND:

¶112

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL - 572 130.

¶113

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR - 562 123.

¶114

9 -

¶115

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶118

TUMKUR - 562 123.

¶119

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MUZRAI DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶120

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 562 123.

¶121

THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA YEDIUR BRANCH, YEDIUR KUNIGAL TALUK.

¶122

THE MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK NOW CANARA BANK NAGASANDRA BRANCH YEDIUR, KUNIGAL TALUK.

¶123

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KUNIGAL SUB DIVISION HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF JALADIGER VILLAGE YEDIUR HOBLI KUNIGAL - 572 130.

¶124

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNIGAL CIRCLE KUNIGAL - 572 130.

¶125

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION

¶126

10 -

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

HAVING JURISDICTION OF YEDIUR CIRCLE AMRUTHUR

¶130

KUNIGAL TALUK.

¶131

...RESPONDENTS

¶132

(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 5, 8 TO 10, R6, R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶133

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TAHSILDAR, KUNIGAL TO HAND OVER THE ACCOUNT BEARING NO.00000064194968494 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, YEDIYUR BRANCH TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OR TO THE TEMPLE TRUSTEE AND ETC.

¶134

IN WP NO. 29125/2023

¶135

BETWEEN:

¶136

THE JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA TEMPLE AT : JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL - 572130 REPTD BY THE SECRETARY SRI. KRISHNAPPA.

¶137

...PETITIONER

¶138

(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. MANJULA DEVI M.G., ADVOCATE)

¶139

AND:

¶140

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL - 572 130.

¶141

THE REGISTRAR JUDICIAL OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶142

11 -

¶143

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

THE REGISTRAR SIRASTHEDAR ATTACHED TO PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶146

THE ASST., REGISTRAR ATTACHED TO CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION COURT KUNIGAL - 572 130.

¶147

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶148

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶149

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTACHED TO KUNIGAL POLICE STATION KUNIGAL - 572 130.

¶150

SRI J.K. SHIVANNA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶151

SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O BYATAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT GURUKRUPA NO 346 11^TH MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶152

SRI G SRINIVAS S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶153

12 -

¶154

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

R/AT JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR - DISTRICT.

¶157

THE SYNIDCATE BANK PRESENTLY CANARA BANK NAGASANDRA, YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶158

THE STATE BANK OF MYSORE PRESENTLY SBI, YEDIYUR BRANCH NO. 6, SIDDALINGESHWARNAGAR KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER.

¶159

...RESPONDENTS

¶160

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R10; SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. B.P. RADHA., AGA FOR R1, R5, R6 & R7; R3, R9, R11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. MANJUNATHA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. K. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R10)

¶161

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO TAKE THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION OF PETITIONER TEMPLE OR ACT AS A RECEIVER TO THE PETITIONER TEMPLE TRUST VIDE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.06.2023 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶162

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶163

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

¶164

13 -

¶165

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

ORAL ORDER

¶168

These writ petitions pertain to a religious institution known and called as "Jaladigeremma (Sri.Chikkamma and Doddamma) Temple Trust" situated at Jaladigere Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, on a property bearing Sy.No.128/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas.

¶169

Certain disputes arose between the families belonging to Vokkaliga and Kuruba Community's of the locality concerning the aforesaid temple resulting in filing of suits and counter suits. A suit in O.S.No.16/1970 had been filed by one D.Venkategowda and others which culminated in the judgment and order dated 14.07.2005 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.1012/1990 in which it has been held that the aforesaid religious institution is a private institution.

¶170

Things stood thus, the respondent-state has passed an order dated 24.07.2020 in purported exercise of its power under Sections 42 and 43 of the Hindu Religious Institution Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 declaring the aforesaid temple

¶171

to be a notified institution. It is this order which is put in question in these batch of writ petitions.

¶172

14 -

¶173

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶174

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in

¶175

W.P.No.15339/2020, submits that the primary grievance of the petitioners therein is that no opportunity of being heard is provided by the respondent-state before issuing the order at Annexure-A resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits since there is a categorical finding by the trial Court and this Court in its order dated 14.07.2005, holding the temple in question to be a private temple, the respondent authority without providing any opportunity to the petitioners herein could not have passed the impugned order.

¶176

Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.24043/2022 after arguing the matter for sometime on instructions seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition. Memo filed to that effect is placed on record. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶177

As regards the petitioners in W.P.No.11261/2020 and W.P.No.29125/2023, their only grievance is with regard to the exclusion of existing trustees from the management and affairs of the aforesaid institution. Learned counsel submits that

¶178

15 -

¶179

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶180

taking over of the management and affairs of the institution by

¶181

the respondent-state without the existing trustees having any role in its administration would cause them great prejudice. He however submits that if a direction is issued to the respondent-

¶182

state to ensure the safety of the movable and immovable properties of the institution, the purpose of the petition would be served.

¶183

Heard. Perused the records.

¶184

Though petitioners in W.P.No.15339/2020 have raised

¶185

the question with regard to authority and jurisdiction of the respondent-state to issue an order as per Annexure-A in the light of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16/1970 confirmed by this Court in RSA No.1012/1990. Necessary to note that in the said RSA No.1012/1990 this Court had framed following substantial questions of law:

¶186

"(1) Whether the Government is empowered under Section 17 or 18 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 (the `Act' for short) to pass an order contrary to the finding in the enquiry report of the Muzrai officer exercising appellate power in declaring temples in question as public temples?

¶187

(2) The effect of repealing of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 and the enactment of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable

¶188

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶189

16 -

¶190

HC-KAR

¶191

Endowments Act, 1997 (`the new Act' for short) to the present proceedings?"

¶192

While answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law

¶193

this Court at paragraph 18, has held as under:

¶194

"18. In view of the above discussion while answering the substantial questions of law raised, it has to be held that the lower Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and it has come to the wrong conclusion in holding that the temples are public temples. Further the Government committed an error in acting upon the report of the Muzrai Officer to formulate the scheme and for directing the Muzrai Officer to formulate the scheme and submit the same for its sanction as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. When once the temples are held to be private temples and it is not covered under the definition as noted above, necessarily the Government ought to have proceeded based on the report of the Muzrai Officer. Although it contained a provision regarding mismanagement of the funds of the temples under the scheme, the earlier Act was not wide enough to cover such mismanagement. In that view of the matter, I have to hold that substantial question of law raised regarding application of Section 17 and 18 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act to the temples and acting thereon by the Government is not permissible under law and the same has to be answered in favour of the appellants. As noted above, the effect of repealing the old Act, The Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1927 and on the enactment of the new Act i.e., The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 itself provide for a saving clause under Section 78 whereby applying Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, Acts were not saved. However, as the new Act is wide enough to cover the mismanagement of any of the institutions which are either maintained by the Public or private and if there is a mismanagement by notification or by declaration by the Government, such institution could be taken over or declared as public institution by appointing the trustees or managers as provided under Sections 23 and 42 of the Act. Such act would be contemplated by the Government in future if it comes to the conclusion that there is a mismanagement. In view of the above, while answering the substantial questions of law raised in favour of the appellants, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the lower appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court is reversed thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. No costs".

¶195

17 -

¶196

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶197

HC-KAR

¶198

Thus, as noted above, this Court had categorically observed that if in the event of respondent-state finding it necessary, it can initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Act, 1997. That finding and observation has remained unchallenged and attained finality.

¶199

The order impugned proceeds on the premise that a dispute between the two groups of the village had necessitated issuance of notices under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act calling upon the parties concerned to show cause which remained unanswered, resulting in a report being called for by the concerned authorities. Consideration of the material, prompted the respondent-state to pass the order impugned in this petition. There is considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they have not been given opportunity of being heard before the respondentstate coming to that conclusion.

¶200

In response, learned Additional Government Advocate pointing out to unnumbered paragraph 4 of the order

¶201

18 -

¶202

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶203

HC-KAR

¶204

submits that as many as four notices have been issued and served on the parties concerned and since they have not bothered to respond, the authorities have proceeded to pass the order based on the report received, as such no error or illegality can be found in respondent-state passing the impugned order.

¶205

On a query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit in unison that presently the aforesaid religious institution is under the management, administration and supervision of Tahsildar, Kunigal. It is further submitted that as and when necessary the said Tahsildar is seeking permission of this Court.

¶206

Be that as it is. The respondent-state having invoked

¶207

the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 as found at impugned document at Annexure-A, the only ground which requires consideration is whether the petitioners in these petitions to be provided an opportunity of being heard by the respondentstate.

¶208

19 -

¶209

NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶210

Considering the chequered history of this institution, and also the claims and rival claims, this Court deems it appropriate that parties be relegated to respondent No.1, who shall after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard including consideration of their claim of the institution being a private entity, pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.

¶211

Parties are at liberty to submit and make their representation and furnish such documents if so advised, which shall be taken into consideration and a detailed speaking order in this regard shall be passed. Such exercise shall be undertaken within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶212

The impugned order is kept in abeyance till consideration of representation and passing of the order as directed above.

¶213

It is further directed that the affairs of the institution, management and supervision of its properties both movable and immovable including cash shall be carried on and managed by the Tahsildar in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner.

¶214

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶215

He shall also ensure that the daily prayers, rituals and the annual festivals of the temple be carried/conducted in a peaceful and wholesome manner without giving scope for any unruly incidents.

¶216

With the above observations, writ petitions are disposed

¶217

of. W.P.No.24043/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶218

All contentions of the parties kept open.

¶219

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

¶220

SBN

¶221

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

J.G. Ramanna v. Govt. of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.G. Ramanna v. Govt. of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Integrated Medical Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Maral Fishers Farmer Producers Trust( R) Vs the Director

Kumari Renukamba Vs the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes

M/S Pernod Ricard India Pvirate Limited Vs Union of India

Mrs Rajeshwari Vs Bank of India

Minerva Mills Vs the Estate Officer