- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9454 W.P. No.53887/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.53887/2014 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. CHINNAMMA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS W/O V. KUMAR R/AT. SIDI HOSKOTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.C. RAJU, ADV., FOR SMT. MANASA M.B. ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT SURAGA JAKKANAHALLI KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 4. NAGARAJU S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9454 W.P. No.53887/2014 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. SIDI HOSKOTE VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV., FOR R4 R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.INACR 10/09- 10, DTD 9.5.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-P. DIRECT THE R-3 TO MEASURE THE AVAILABLE LANDS IN K.NO.58 & 59 FO SIDI HOSKOTE VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AFTER NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner by which the Special Deputy Commissioner has conferred occupancy rights in respect of Kaneshumari No.58 (new janjaru No.96/58) and Kaneshumari No.59 (new janjaru No.97/59) under Section - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9454 W.P. No.53887/2014 8 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved of the fact that the Special Deputy Commissioner has specified that Kaneshumari No.58 measures 188' x 50' and Kaneshumari No.59 measures 220' x 100'. It is the case of the petitioner that the temple did not own this extent of land and the extent that is now shown in the order virtually encompasses and includes the land of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased the property from her vendor and her vendor had purchased the property way back in the year 1953 and it was assigned Kaneshumari No.63/3. He submits that, in essence, Kanishumari No.63/3 is sought to be usurped by the petitioner under the guise of the said order and therefore she has the right to challenge the said order. 3. In my view, since the petitioner essentially contends that land of the temple claimed and granted was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9454 W.P. No.53887/2014 actually in excess of the temple's actual land holding, her land has been included in the order of grant, this question will have to be determined only by the Civil Court and not by the Special Deputy Commissioner. 4. The Special Deputy Commissioner has not recorded any finding as to what was the exact extent of land that the temple possessed in Kaneshumari Nos.58 and 59. It has to be held that the petitioner, by virtue of claiming only the temple land, will only be entitled to the extent of land that the temple actually owns. Since there is no finding recorded by the Special Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order regarding the holding of the temple over Kaneshumari Nos.58 and 59, in my view it would be appropriate to hold that the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner will only entitle respondent No.4 to claim occupancy rights in respect of the land which is owned by the temple and not the extent mentioned in the order. 5. It will be open for the petitioner to establish that the extent of the property owned by the temple and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9454 W.P. No.53887/2014 the extent owned by her. If the petitioner was able to establish that the extent of the land owned by the temple in Kaneshumari Nos.58 and 59 is lesser than the one indicated in the order, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner should be confined only to that extent. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of subject to the above observations. 6. Since it is stated that the petitioner has already filed a suit for injunction and there is an interim order operating in the said suit, it will be appropriate to maintain status quo as regards the property in question. 7. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to either amend the suit that she has filed for injunction and seek for declaration or in the alternative file a fresh suit. Sd/- (N.S. SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47