Shri. Krishnaji Tammaji Kotabagi vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3561 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shri. Krishnaji Tammaji Kotabagi vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025

Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad

Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad

                                           -1-
                                                    NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB
                                                    WA No. 100073 of 2025




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                       DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                        PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
                                           AND
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR


                         WRIT APPEAL NO. 100073 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)
               BETWEEN:

               SHRI. KRISHNAJI TAMMAJI KOTABAGI,
               AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: CHAIRMAN
               SHRI VITTHAL DEVASTHAN TRUST KITTUR,
               R/O GURUWAR PETE, KITTUR, DIST: DHARWAD

                                                             ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. SHRIKANT. T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND
Digitally signed      CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS R/BY
by                    BENGALURU-560001
SHAKAMBARI
Location: High 2.     SHRI. VITTHAL DEVASTHAN TRUST COMMITTEE,
Court of              KITTUR, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELGAVI,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench         REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

               3.     SRI. VITTHAL GOPALRAO PAGAD,
                      AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                      R/O. NO. 943, GURUWAR PETE,
                      TQ:KITTUR, DIST: BELGAVI-591115.

               4.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                      OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                      D.C. COMPOUND, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
                           -2-
                                 NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB
                                 WA No. 100073 of 2025




5.   THE TAHSILDAR,
     OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR, GURUWAR PETE,
     TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

6.   SRI. GURURAJ S/O. HUCHARAO KULKARNI,
     AGE:69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. #1064, GURUWAR PETE,
     TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

7.   SRI. SHREERANGA S/O. BABURAV INAMDAR
     AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. #1021, GADDI ONI, GURUWAR PETE,
     TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.

8.   SRI. HANUMANTH S/O. TIMMAJI KOTABAGI,
     AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. GADDI ONI, GURUWAR PETE,
     TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-580007.

9.   SRI. RAJENDRA KRISHNAJI NAGAR,
     AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. #307, PRATIMA APARTMENT,
     3RD FLOOR, KABBUR ROAD, MALAMADDI,
     TQ: AND DIST: DHARWAD-580007.

10. SRI. VIKRAM MADHWABHATTA GADAGI
    AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O. #1048, GURUWAR PETE, GADDI ONI,
    TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591115.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN. K. UPPAR,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1, R4 AND R5.
SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3
SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R10.)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
NO. 100053/2024 & ETC.
                                 -3-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB
                                            WA No. 100073 of 2025




     THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED JUDGMENT THEREIN AS
UNDER:


CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
           AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR



                       ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD)

This Court must at the outset observe that the larger

controversy is about who make the Committee which can

oversee management of Sri Vitthal Devasthan [the Temple], at

Kittur, Belagavi. This larger question may have to be

considered in Misc.No.242/2023 on the file of the Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi1 and in WP

No.100053/2024, a petition filed by the sixth to tenth

respondents for directions to the State and its office to take

control of the temple until the disposal of the aforesaid

miscellaneous application.

1 These miscellaneous proceedings are under Section 3 and 7 of the

Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB

2. This writ petition is pending from the

month of January 2024, and for the annul Jatra Mahotsava

that is held in the month of January 2024, the writ Court by

its order dated 09.01.2024 has made certain arrangements

with discretion to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to choose the

persons to assist him in the conduct of this event. However,

with some of the respondents in the writ petition invoking

the intra-Court appellate jurisdiction in WA

No.100029/2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has

clarified that the jurisdictional Tahsildar will conduct the

Jatra Mahotsava , but can take the assistance of "trustees of

the first appellant-Trust except appellant No.2, i.e Sri Vitthal

Gopalrao Pagad"2.

3. The traditional Jatra Mahotsava will have to

be held even during the current year, and it is scheduled to

be held between 12th and 14th of February, 2025. When the

petition in WP No.100053/2024 is listed on 29.01.2025, the

writ Court has observed that the directions by the Co-

2 These appellants are the second and third respondents in the present appeal.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB

ordinate Bench in W.A. No.100029/2024 shall be applicable

for the present Jatra Mahatova as well. The appellant, who is

one of the members of the Committee about whose

constitution there is a dispute, is aggrieved by this order.

4. Sri Shrikant T. Patil, the learned counsel for

the appellant, submits that the writ Court could not have

continued the same arrangements because Sri Vittal

Gopalrao Pagad [the third respondent in the present

proceedings who is excluded from participating in the conduct

of the Jatra Mahotsava in W.A. No.100029/2024] has

actively participated in the previous Jatra Mahostsav and

that the Tahsildar has not filed the accounts of the Jatra. Sri

Shrikanth Patil, proposes to contend that the third

respondent must be excluded completely because of certain

acts of misdemeanor. Sri. K.L.Patil, the learned counsel for

the sixth to tenth respondent, while supporting the

canvassed by Sri. Srikant T.Patil, submits that this Court

must modify the arrangement providing for participation of

those members whose names are found in the PTR only as is

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB

indicated by the appellants in the petition in WP

No.100053/2024.

5. Sri Anoop Deshapande, the learned counsel

for the second and third respondents, refutes the assertion

that the third respondent has participated in the previous

Jatra Mahotsava despite the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench

in W.A.No.100029/2024 and that the accounts have not

been filed. The learned counsel also refuses the allegations

of misdemeanor by the third respondent. In fact, the learned

counsel submits proposes to make elaborate submissions to

contend that all the members of the Committee as stated in

Misc.A.No.242/2023 must be permitted to assist the

Tahsildar in the conduct of the Jatra Mahotsava and

exclusion of any member would be prejudicial as all are duly

selected as the members of the Committee.

6. This Court must also record that the

learned counsel emphasis that the third respondent cannot

be prevented from participating in the Jatra Mahotsava as a

devotee. Sri. Ravindra Hadimani, the jurisdictional Tahsildar

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB

who is present, when queried states that the accounts for

the previous Jatra Mahotsava is filed in the writ proceeding

in the month of April 2024 and that the Tahsildar also

submits that he has not permitted the third respondent to

participate in the conduct of the Jatra Mahotsava on the

previous occasion.

7. This Court is of the considered view that as

all questions are now pending in WP No.100053/2024, no

observations can be made even on who will be entitled to

participate in the conduct of the Jatra Mahotsava scheduled

to be held between 12.02.2025 and 14.02.2025. The

standout is that the jurisdictional Tahsildar has conducted

Jatra Mahotsava on the previous occasion and is assisted by

those mentioned in Misc.A.No.242/2023 except the third

respondent and this arrangement obviously has not brought

about a quietus on the dispute about who must organize the

Jatra Mahotsava during the pendency of the writ petition.

Therefore, this Court must examine whether there must be

any change in the arrangement that was provided for on the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2225-DB

previous occasion for the conduct of the scheduled Jatra

Mahotsava.

8. The Jatra Mahotsava is over the next week

and the arrangements must be made for the same at the

earliest. The arrangement must be mutually acceptable and

without prejudice to respective contentions. This Court in

this regard has queried the learned counsels, Sri Sriktant T.

Patil and Sri K.L.Patil, who submit that Sri. Balavant

Prabhakar Davale and Sri Vitthal Krishanji Mathad and Sri

Shri Krishnaji Tammaji Kotabagi3, must only assist the

Tahsildar because these persons are mentioned in the PTR

and are also part of the Committee that is constituted by the

second and third respondents and that the third person was

the Chairman of the undisputed Committee in the past.

9. Sri Anoop Deshpande submits that the

group of people who can assist the Tahsildar must be wider

because, according to the second respondent, the Committee

3 These persons are also part of the Committee that is constituted by the second and third respondents.

[e]   The     ad    hoc    Committee       shall   meet    on

      07.02.2025      to   work      out   the     modalities