- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 29343 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER MELUKOTE SRI CHELUVANARAYANASWAMY TEMPLE MELUKOTE TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. HITTINHALLI VARSHA DILIP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF KARNATAKA VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MYSURU TAHSILDAR OFFICER - MYSURU MANANTHAVADI RD, MYSURU - 570008. REP BY SECRETARY. 3. TAHSILDAR - MYSURU MANANTHAVADI RD MYSURU – 570008. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570005. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570005. 6. SRI. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS SON OF LATE CHEEYAPPA RESIDING AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57007. AADHAR NO. 5984 1807 4760 7. SMT. MANJULA K R AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SRI RAMAIAH AADHAR NO. 9364 0793 5202 8. SRI. PRUTHIVI GOWDA A N AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS SON OF NAGENDRA A R AADHAR NO.7165 3637 1240 9. MS. SINCHANA A N AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS DAUGHTER OF NAGENDRA A R AADHAR NO. 4545 9631 6810 R7 TO R9 ARE RESIDING AT CHUNCHEGOWDA STREET, ARAKERE VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571415. 10. SRI. R SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SON OF SRI RAMAIAH AADHAR NO. 7726 4315 1693 11. MS. PRIYADARSHINI AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SRI. R SRINIVASA AADHAR NO.3813 8754 9782 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 12. KUM. SHREYASHWINI AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SRI. R SRINIVASA AADHAR NO. 8482 9324 2546 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED FATHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI. R SRINIVASA 13. SMT. MANI R AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS WIFE OF SRI VIJENDRA DAUGHTER OF SRI RAMAIAH AADHAR NO. 2737 1367 9530 14. SRI. ROHAN GOWDA .V AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS SON OF VIJENDRA AADHAR NO. 3144 9599 7146 15. SRI. TEJAS GOWDA V AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS SON OF VIJENDRA AADHAR NO. 5525 7946 5579 16. SRI. RAMALINGU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SON OF LATE HANUMAIAH AADHAR NO. 8037 0119 2254 17. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR R AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SON OF SRI RAMALINGU AADHAR NO. 3244 8715 4482 18. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS WIFE OF LATE RAMEGOWDA DAUGHTER OF LATE HANUMAIAH AADHAR NO. 7036 5274 6546 19. SRI. VASANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 SON OF LATE RAMEGOWDA AADHAR NO. 6121 9627 8083 20. SRI. ANANTHARAMU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS SON OF LATE RAMU AADHAR NO. 3281 5322 4258 21. SMT. VARALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS WIFE OF KRISHNA AADHAR NO. 8885 5047 7310 R10 TO R21 ARE RESIDING AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57007. 22. SMT. GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WIFE OF LATE LINGARAJU DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTASWAMY RESIDING AT NO. 13/C, 2ND CROSS TANK ROAD, N R MOHALLA MYSURU - 570007. AADHAR NO. 6526 9921 9174 23. SMT. BHUVANESHWARI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WIFE OF K N MAHESHA RESIDING AT KADATHANALU PANDAVAPURA R S SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA DISTRICT-571435. AADHAR NO. 6430 2899 8546 24. SRI. L MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS SON OF LATE LINGARAJU RESIDING AT NO. 13/C 2ND CROSS, TANK ROAD N R MOHALLA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 MYSURU - 570 007. AADHAR NO. 6664 0739 6883 25. SRI. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS SON OF LATE PUTTASWAMY 26. SRI. RAJESH N AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SON OF SRI NAGESHA AADHAR NO. 4180 8362 0798 27. SRI. CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS SON OF SRI NAGESHA AADHAR NO. 6903 4998 0182 28. SRI. YASHWANTH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS SON OF SRI NAGESHA AADHAR NO. 6808 4890 8559 29. SRI. ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SON FO LATE PUTTASWAMY AADHAR NO. 2830 9145 9563 R25 TO R29 ARE R/AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57007. 30. MS. GAGANA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SRI ASHOKA RESDING AT NO. 13/3 2ND CROSS, TANK ROAD N R MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 007 AADHAR NO. 2067 8704 8380 31. MS. PAVANA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 DAUGHT ER OF SRI ASHOKA RESIDING AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57007. AADHAR NO. 6618 8181 2041. 32. SMT. SUMATHI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WIFE OF DEVARAJU K DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTASWAMY RESIDING AT NO. 705, 3RD CROSS SHANKARAPUARA, K R PETE MANDYA DISTRICT – 571426. AADHAR NO. 5607 8468 5806 33. SMT. POORNIMA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS WIFE OF PRATHAPA .B.N RESIDING AT LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY NILAYA NMC 4TH CROSS, HOSAMANE BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577245 AADHAR NO. 9336 3356 3767 34. MASTER PRAJWAL AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SON OF DEVARAJU RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS BENNE KALAIAH RICE MILL SHANKARAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 419. AADHAR NO. 5585 9841 4881 SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED MOTHER / NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SUMATHI 35. SMT. CHELUVAMMA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS WIFE OF LATE KEMPAIAH @ KEMPEGOWDA AADHAR NO. 2958 7613 2685 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 36. SMT. NINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE KEMPAIAH @ KEMPEGOWDA AADHAR NO. 6159 3222 3533 37. KUM. RUKMINI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE KEMPLAIAH @ KEMPEGWODA AADHAR NO. 9530 4222 2587 38. SMT. RENUKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WIFE OF LATE DINESHA AADHAR NO. 9199 6381 3256 R35 TO 38 ARE R/AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57007. 39. SMT. KAVITHA K D AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS WIFE OF MAHENDRA P DAUGHTER OF LATE DINESHA RESIDING AT KADUKOTANAHALLI C A KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428. AADHAR NO. 9301 8887 8662 40. SRI. KARTHIK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SON OF LATE DINESHA AADHAR NO. 2255 3202 7871 41. KUMARI NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE KEMPAIAH @ KEMPEGOWDA AADHAR NO. 8750 6324 3535 42. SRI. NAGESHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 SON OF LATE KEMPAIAH @ KEMPEGOWDA AADHAR NO. 6807 7201 9037 43. SRI. SWAROOP N AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS SON OF SRI NAGESH AADHAR NO. 3946 0652 2620 44. MS. PRAPHULLA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SRI NAGESH AADHAR NO. 6805 7045 2793 R40 TO R44 ARE R/AT KAMANAKERE HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57007. 45. SRI. SATISH BABU EPURU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF E. VEDAGIRI REDDY RESIDING AT NO. 204, 2ND FLOOR BALAKRISHNA RAO ROAD GANESH RESIDENCY CHAMARAJAPURAM, MYSURU-570005. AADHAR NO. 6136 6595 6090 46. SRI. CHIKKAHATTI BOREGOWDA MAJOR IN AGE NAGUNAHALLI, H.D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 57114. 47. SMT. DEVAMMA MAJOR IN AGE CARE OF GOVINDAPPA JAMEENDHAR SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571438. 48. SRI. B. VENKATESHIAH MAJOR IN AGE S/O GOSE GOWDA - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 NO. 92, NAGUNAHALLI SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571438. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R6, R16, R18, R22, R25, R29, R32, R35 TO R42 AND R45) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN KLRM 1019, 997, 993/1974-75 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 2, I.E. LAND TRIBUNAL MYSURU, HOLDING THAT THE SO-CALLED ORDER DATED 17.06.1976 SAID TO HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2, I.E. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MYSURU, IN KLRM 1019, 997, 993/1974-75, (ANNEXURE A) PURPORTING TO CONFER OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IS ILLEGAL, NULL AND VOID, NOT BINDING ON THE PETITIONER OR THE TEMPLE, AND QUASH / SET-ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is challenging an order of the Land Tribunal passed on 17.06.1976 by which the Land Tribunal had conferred occupancy rights on the tenants. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land was endowed to the temple and that the revenue records - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 stood in the name of the temple and the Land Tribunal, without making the temple as a party, has proceeded to confer occupancy rights on the tenants. It is therefore contended that notwithstanding the fact that the order was passed in the year 1976, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the said order the moment it came to their knowledge that their lands were sought to be granted to the so-called tenants. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to advance arguments on the merits of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and contended that the entire order passed by the Land Tribunal was a clear case of fraud that has been practised on the Tribunal and the very passing of the order could not be sustained. 4. The basic argument of the petitioner is that the land was endowed to the temple and therefore, the temple was required to be made a party and the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 endowment is also evidenced by the entry in the revenue records. 5. The temple has produced Index of Lands and Record of Rights (I.L.&R.R.) which admittedly formed the basis for the entry of the name of the temple in the revenue records. The said entries found in the I.L&R.R. read as follows: 535 ªÉÄîÄPÉÆÃmÉ ZÀ®ÄªÀgÁAiÀĸÁé«Ä zÉêÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw ¸ÀAªÀvÀìgÀzÀ®Æè F zÉêÀgÀ ªÉÊgÀªÀÄÄr GvÀìªÀ PÁ®zÀ°è zÉêÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ §UÉÎ ¨ÉÆÃgÉUËqÀ, ªÉAPÉÖÃUËqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÉÆøÉÃUËqÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ zsÀªÀiÁðxÀðªÁV PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV 1£Éà ¨ÉÆÃgÉÃUËqÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ UÉÆÃ¸É UËqÀjAzÀ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛ 396 536 1£Éà UÉÆøÉÃUËqÀ ©£ï ¨ÉÆÃgÉÃUËqÀ 2£Éà ªÉAPÀmÉÃUËqÀ ©£ï ªÉAPÀmÉÃUËqÀ 3£Éà aPÀ̪ÉAPÀmÉÃUËqÀ ©£ï UÉÆøÉÃUËqÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F d«ÄãÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ EzÀgÀ GvÀàwÛ¬ÄAzÀ zÉêÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ £ÀqɸÀvÀPÀÌ ªÀ»ªÁlÄzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ 396 6. It is not in dispute that the entries in relation to all the survey numbers are in verbatim the same. As could be seen from the above, the entries that the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 land was endowed to the temple was based on the information that was stated to have been obtained from the children of Boregowda i.e., Gosegowda. In other words, the entry in I.L.&R.R. is obviously made on the information that has come to the knowledge of the person who made the entry and not on a statement of the owners who had made the endowment. 7. Since the entries in the I.L.&R.R. are not on the basis of the statement given by the owners or by their children, in my view, the I.L.&R.R. does not, by itself, indicate that there is an endowment in favour of the temple, the argument that the land was endowed to the temple and its name therefore was entered in the revenue records and therefore, they ought to have been heard in the matter cannot be accepted. 8. It will have to be borne in mind that the writ petition is filed nearly 50 years after the order was passed by - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 the Land Tribunal. If the land was endowed to the temple, there must have been some other documents to indicate the endowment and also the documents to show that this endowed land was put to use by the temple for the use of the temple. 9. In fact, as could be seen from the entries in the I.L&R.R., the entries by themselves state that the lands therein were tenanted by the land owners and the lease amounts that they were collecting was being used to perform the religious activity. This particular statement by itself indicates that the land was tenanted and consequently, by virtue of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, all the tenanted lands stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances and necessarily, these tenanted lands would have to be granted to the tenants in occupation. 10. In my view, since the records produced by the petitioner do not indicate that there was an - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 endowment in favour of the temple, the petitioner would have no local standi to challenge an order which was passed way back in the year 1976. In this view of the matter, the examination of the order of the Land Tribunal on its merits at the instance of the Land Tribunal would not arise. 11. The learned Senior Counsel however seeks to place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi1, to contend that the endowment could be inferred from the revenue records. 12. It must be pointed out that in that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the case where the properties therein were conceded to be subject to charge of the charities and the fact that the properties were subjected to the Trust was only in denial. In a case where it was not in dispute that the 1 Menakuru Deasaratharami Reddi and another vs. Duddukuru SubbaRao and others, AIR 1957 SC 797 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 land was subjected to charge of charitable trust, any observation made therein would have no application to the facts of the present case. 13. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pt.Ram Chandra Shukla2 to indicate that the dedication of the property for religious and charitable purpose can, according to Hindu law, directly be made orally and no written document was necessary. 14. There can be no quarrel with this proposition, but the fact remains that it is not the case of the temple that there was an endowment made to it orally. The only argument being advanced is the endowment stood established by virtue of an entry in the revenue records. 15. As already noticed above, the entry in the revenue records is not on the basis of the statement given by 2 Pt.Ram Chandra Shukla vs. Shree Mahadeoji Mahabirji and Hazrat Ali Kanpur and others, (1969) 3 SCC 700; - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16452 WP No. 29343 of 2024 the landlord, but it is on the basis of the information collected by the revenue authorities to make the entries. 16. In that view of the matter, in my view, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel would be of no avail to the petitioner. 17. As already stated above, it would be improper to interfere with an order passed by the Land Tribunal in 1976 i.e., more than 50 years ago, at the instance of the petitioner who is unable to establish that there has been an endowment made in its favour. 18. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. 19. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51