Karnataka High Court
Sri Ranganatha Pujar vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
WP No. 16492 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.16492 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RANGANATHA PUJAR
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WORKING AS MAIN PRIEST,
SRI MALLAMMADEVI TEMPLE,
R/A DEVELAPURA POST,
KONTHIHALLI, KORA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572138.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAHNAVI M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally signed DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
by SHARMA
ANAND CHAYA M.S.BUILDING,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR SUB DIVISON,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT- 572101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
WP No. 16492 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
KORA P.S, KORA,
TUMKUR TALUK AND
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572128.
6. SRI. R. MALLAIAH,
AGED : MAJOR,
S/O LATE RANGAIAH,
KONTHIHALLI GRAMA,
KORA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572138.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2024 PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RP NO.219/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-
H IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN RA(A)(TU) - 790/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2022 PASSED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT IN SUM.RRT(DIS)CR- 22/2019-20 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO EXTENT OF THE
LAND IS CONCERNED RESTRICTING THE LAND TO 7.8 GUNTAS
AS AGAINST 20 GUNTAS OF THE TEMPLE SRI MALLAMMA DEVI
SITUATED AT KONTI VILLAGE KORA HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
WP No. 16492 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
order dated 15.10.2024 passed by respondent No. 2 in
RP No. 219 of 2022 (Annexure-H), the order dated
14.08.2018 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No. 3,
and the order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure-G) passed
by respondent No. 4, in respect of the subject land. The
petitioner, inter-alia, seeks a direction against
respondent No.5 to refrain from interfering with the civil
rights of the parties.
2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this
writ petition are as follows: The petitioner claims to be
the hereditary priest of Mallamma Devi Temple located
in Develapura village. It is further stated that
respondent No.6 claims to be the owner of the land
guntas, situated at Konthihalli, Hottemallayanapalyna,
Kora Hobli, Tumkur Taluk and District. Additionally, it is
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
HC-KAR
stated that the temple is situated within the vicinity of
the said 05 acres and 10 guntas, extending to about 20
guntas in Sy. No.19/2. Respondent No. 6 was a
government servant and is now retired.
3. It is further stated in the petition that the
temple is situated within 20 guntas of land, as per the
RTC extracts produced at Annexure-A. Respondent No. 6
has filed OS No. 1568 of 2011 and OS No. 548 of 2011
against the petitioner and one Sri Doddaiah. Both suits
were dismissed by the competent Civil Court as per the
judgment and decree dated 13.04.2018 (Annexure-E). It
is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner
assailed the order passed in MR No. 8 of 2010-11 dated
29.06.2011 before respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 6
has challenged the order passed in MR No. 10 of 2008-
11 dated 29.06.2011 before respondent No. 3.
Respondent No. 3, by order dated 14.08.2018, partly
allowed the appeal and directed respondent No. 4 to
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
HC-KAR
conduct a survey and submit the report accordingly.
Subsequently, respondent No. 4 after conducting the
survey, passed an order on 20.09.2022 (Annexure-G)
and directed to maintain the status-quo in respect of
subject land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed RP No. 219
of 2022 before respondent No. 2, challenging the order
dated 14.08.2018. Respondent No. 2 dismissed the
Revision Petition vide order dated 15.10.2024
(Annexure-H). Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. I have heard Sri. Jahnavi M., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekar,
Additional Government Advocate respondent State.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is the priest in the temple
in question which is situated in the land in question and
the respondent No.6 had admitted the fact of existence
of the temple in 20 guntas in Sy No.19/2c and
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
HC-KAR
therefore, it is contended that, the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.2 at Annexure- H requires
to be interfered with in this writ petition.
6. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent-State submits that, petitioner not being the
owner of the land in question nor an interested party,
has no locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the
respondent No.3 dated 14.08.2018 in RA No. 790 of
2017 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ
petition.
7. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, admittedly
the petitioner claiming right over the property in
question by stating that he is the priest in a temple
which is situated in the land in question belong to the
respondent No6. No document has been produced
before the respondent-authority to prove that, land has
NC: 2025:KHC:20707
HC-KAR
been gifted by the respondent No.6 in favour of the
petitioner or to the temple in question. In that view of
the matter, I am of the opinion that, no interference is
called for in this writ petition. Therefore, respondent
No.2 has rightly arrived at a conclusion to dismiss the
challenge made by the petitioner and accordingly,
passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 in
R.P.No.219 of 2022 (Annexure-H), which is just and
proper. In that view of the matter, there is no perversity
in the order passed by the respondent No.2.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of
merits.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
