Karnataka High Court
Sri Guru Chidambar Devar Devathanr vs The Assistant Commissioner on 26 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 104196 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
SRI. GURU CHIDAMBAR DEVAR DEVASTHANR,
TRUST COMMITTEE, MUGAD,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
MUGAD VILLAGE,
TQ. & DISTRICT. DHARWAD-580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
AND
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
(CONSTRUCTION) RAILWAYS,
CLUB ROAD, KESHWAPUR,
HUBLI-580023.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SRI. MALLAPPA
S/O. SIDDAPPA AKKI,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUGAD,
TQ.& DISTRICT: DHARWAD,
PIN CODE-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. S. C. BELLAKKI, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
26/08/2022 MADE ON IA NO.III AND IV/2022 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD
IN EP NO.38/2020 BY REJECTING IA NO.3 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION I.E. IA NO.4
FILED BY THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
25.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This petition is filed challenging order dated 26.08.2022
passed on IA.Nos.III and IV of 2022 in E.P.No.38/2020 by the II
Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad.
2. Sri.S.M.Kalwad, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that respondent No.4 filed an application to
keep the amount deposited by the respondent No.1-judgment
debtor in a fixed deposit on the ground that he has been illegally
removed from the presidency of the trust and that his father has
gifted 1 acre of land to the temple trust and he has filed a civil
suit challenging his removal as the president of the trust. It is
further submitted that the current president of the petitioner-
Trust filed an application for release of the deposited amount in
favour of the decree holder. It is also submitted that the trial
Court has incorrectly come to a conclusion that there is a dispute
with regard to the presidency of the trust and there are chances
of misuse of funds and ordered to keep the amount in fixed
deposit, which is challenged. It is contended that the petitioner is
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
a present president of the trust and the amount is required to be
released for the purpose of the trust, which has not been
appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the
petition by releasing the amount.
3. Per contra, Sri.Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 supports the impugned order of
the trial Court and submits that respondent No.4 is the original
president of the trust committee and the application filed by the
petitioner claiming to be the trustee for withdrawal of amount
has rightly been rejected by the trial Court as he cannot be a
trustee as per the trust deed. The respondent No.4 is the
permanent president of the trust and he cannot be removed and
any dispute with regard to the presidency of the trust must be
addressed by initiating the appropriate proceedings under the
provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act'). It
is submitted that the alleged resolution of removing respondent
No.4 is challenged in a civil suit and till the same is disposed off,
the deposited amount cannot be released in favour of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no provision under
the trust deed to remove respondent No.4 as a president of the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
trust and the entire action is illegal. Hence, he seeks to sustain
the impugned order.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and meticulously
perused the material available on record. I have given my
anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both
sides.
5. The records indicate that the land of Sri.Guru
Chidambar Devar Devasthana trust was acquired for public
purpose and the reference Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.45,000/- per gunta with solatium @ 30% and statutory
interest in LAC.No.178/2011. The respondent No.4 filed an
application claiming to be the president of the trust from 2005
and that his father has gifted one acre of land in favour of the
trust. It is contended that respondent No.4 by creating
documents and claiming as a president, tried to withdraw the
amount and sought for deposit of the compensation amount in a
fixed deposit in any nationalized bank. The petitioner has filed
objections to the said application and also filed an application
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
IA.No.IV for release of the amount which came to be rejected by
the trial Court under the impugned order.
6. The trial Court has recorded the finding that there is
a dispute with regard to the presidency of the trust and until that
is resolved it would be necessary to deposit the amount in a
nationalized bank. It is noticed that respondent No.4 was the
president and he was removed on certain allegations.
Admittedly, the resolution passed to remove respondent No.4 as
a president of the trust is assailed by respondent No.4 in
O.S.No.130/2024 and no interim order is granted in the said
suit. The records indicate that respondent No.4 has filed an
application on 15.03.2021 seeking to withdraw the deposited
amount, which is produced as Annexure-G. The affidavit
accompanying the said application signed by respondent No.4
indicates that he claims to be the owner of the land bearing
Survey Nos.252/1, 252/2, 252/3 of Mugad Village, Dharwad
Taluk and states that land measuring 1 acre 35 guntas was
acquired. The paragraph No.4 of the affidavit indicates that the
withdrawal of the amount is necessary to clear the hand loans
and for his livelihood. The averments made in the affidavit
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
indicate the intention of respondent No.4. Furthermore, there is
a resolution on record for removal of respondent No.4 as the
president of the trust on certain allegation and as on this day he
has no right to neither seek withdrawal of the amount nor make
a prayer to keep the amount in deposit.
7. The other contention of the respondent that the
removal of respondent No.4 as the president of the trust is
impermissible and other trustees ought to have filed an
application before the District Court under the provisions of the
Act has no merit. The issue in the present case is only with
regard to withdrawal of the money deposited in the judicial
proceedings for acquisition of land of the trust. As per the
records available, it is evident that respondent No.4 has been
removed from the presidency of the trust which has been
challenged in the civil suit and no interim order is granted.
Meanwhile, the petitioner, who is the current president, has filed
an application for withdrawal of the money in favour of the trust,
which is required to be allowed. It is needless to observe that the
amount withdrawn is required to be strictly used for objectives of
the trust and they are also required to maintain an account for
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13464
WP No. 104196 of 2022
HC-KAR
the same. The observations made by this Court should not come
in the way of the trial Court deciding the suit filed by the
respondent or any other proceedings. These observations are
only restricted to deciding this petition.
8. Hence, the impugned order calls for interference.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated
26.08.2022 passed on IA.Nos.III and IV of
2022 in E.P.No.38/2022 is hereby set aside.
iii. Consequently, the trial Court is
directed to release the amount along with
the accrued interest in favour of the
petitioner-Trust.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK /CT-AN
