- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 201812 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN 1. MADHUKAR MAHAJAN AGE : 79 YEARS, OCCUPATION : LEGAL PRACTITIONER 2. KUMAR KISHANRAO DESHPANDE AGE : 87 YEARS, OCCUPATION : LEGAL PRACTITIONER BOTH RESIDENT OF BASAVAKALYAN TQ. BASAVAKALYAN DIST. BIDAR - 585 327 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.1; SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.2) AND 1. THE TAHASILDAR AND TALUKA MAGISTRATE BASAVAKALAYAN TQ. BASAVAKALYAN DIST: BIDAR - 585 327 2. AMAYGIRI S/O JAGADISHGIRI AGE : 42 YEARS OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORKER Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 3. VENKATAGIRI S/O MAHESHGIRI AGE 62 YEARS OCCUPATION : AGRICULTURE AND SOCIAL WORKER RESPONDENT Nos.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF GOSAVI GALLI, BASAVAKALYAN, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN DIST: BIDAR - 585 327 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING ANNEXURE-N, NAMELY, THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, SITTING AT BASAVAKALYAN, ALLOWING CRL.RP NO.5009/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.04.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2024 in Crl.R.P.No.5009/2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan, wherein the Trial Court has set aside the order passed by respondent No.1. Brief facts of the case: 2. The petitioners herein were the respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Revisional Court. They were managing the affairs of the Mutt, namely, Sri Sadguru Sadanand Saraswati Mutt, situated at NA land bearing Sy.No.157 measuring 11 acres 26 guntas of Basavakalyan, having temples, dining hall, accommodation for visitors etc., The said Mutt has a history of more than 800 years and it belongs to Dashanam Gosavi Sampradaya. The petitioners herein belong to Vaishnav (Uttaradi Mutt). The said Mutt was being managed by Bapurao Patil - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 Hulsoor and he was the President of Mutt from 1972- 1985. He was also the MLA, Ex-Minister and Deputy Speaker of Karnataka. As there was a dispute in respect of administration of the said Mutt, the administration of the Mutt has been managed by the Prabandhak Committee, which is also known as the Panch Committee. This Committee is looking after the day-to-day affairs of the Mutt and its properties. The history of the said Committee spans more than 60 years and it has been managing the Mutt and its properties, including the cultivation of the lands, constructing structures and buildings and also managing the entire affairs of the said Mutt. 3. It is further submitted that, since 2009, the Mutt has no Peetadhipathi as the then Peetadhipathi was removed from the office, due to his misdeeds. As there was no Peetadhipathi, the Committee has been managing the Mutt directly. 4. It is further submitted that, the Dashnam Goswami Samaj, Basavakalyan is a Youth Club, registered under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The object of the club is for promoting the sports. The said club has nothing to do with the administration of any religious institution. However, the club is trying to usurp the valuable properties and assets of the said Mutt and also trying to interfere with the day-to-day affairs of the said Mutt. 5. The Dashnam Goswami Samaj, with the aid of Naga Sadhus, is trying to take possession of the properties of the Mutt, hence, a complaint came to be registered before the police. The police have registered a case in Crime No.208 of 2014 for the offence under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and submitted a final report. 6. Pursuant to the said final report, an order of attachment was passed on 03.11.2015 by the Taluka Executive Magistrate / respondent No.1 for taking possession of the movable and immovable properties of the said Mutt. The Committee had filed written objections and placed the arguments stating the reasons as to why the properties - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 should not be attached. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 having gone through the written statements of both sides, passed an order dated 25.08.2022 holding that the petitioners herein were having possession and management of the Mutt and its properties. Therefore, it was ordered to restore the properties in favour of the Committee. Accordingly, the properties were handed over to the petitioner No.1 - Madhukar Mahajan, as per the mahazar dated 26.08.2022 drawn in the presence of the officials. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court has passed the impugned order, which is challenged before this Court. 8. Heard Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1, Sri D.P. Ambekar, learned counsel for the petitioner No.2, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is highly erroneous, arbitrary, illegal and also contrary to the facts of the case. Therefore, the same is unsustainable and also liable to be set aside. 10. It is further submitted that, the manner in which the Revisional Court has dealt with the given set of facts is manifestly erroneous and patently illegal. In fact, the Revisional Court went beyond the scope of revision and passed an order, which is required to be set aside. 11. It is further submitted that, the order of determining the validity or otherwise of the possession and also title over the properties of the Mutt does not come within the ambit of the revisional jurisdiction. The Revisional Court should have considered the scope of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. properly. Having failed to consider the same, resulted in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 12. In support of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 SL. NO. PARTICULARS 1. Ranbir Singh v. Dalbir Singh & Ors.1 Relevant Para No.8 2. Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi2 Relevant Para No.11, 17, 18, 23 3. Surinder Pal Kaur & Anr. v. Satpal & Ors.3 Relevant Para No.10 4. Nand Jee Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.4 Relevant Para No.13, 14 ,18 5. Tulsa Devi v. Amar Nath @ Ors.5 Relevant Para No.8 6. Gajendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan6 Relevant Para No.32 7. Kusum v. Soniya Bai & Ors.7 Relevant Para No.7 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed their statement of objections and further submitted that the petitioners had not produced any statement of accounts belonging to the Mutt since so many years. In fact, they misused the amount belonging to the Mutt. Originally, the Mutt belongs to the 1 (2002) 3 SCC 700 2 (2004) 1 SCC 438 3 (2015) 13 SCC 25 4 2025 SCC Online Pat 1863 5 1995 SCC Online All 1035 6 1994 SCC Online Raj 125 7 1974 SCC Online Bom 56 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 respondents, however, due to the dominance of the petitioners, they have taken possession illegally. Therefore, the said possession has not been considered by the Trial Court after appreciating several documents. Hence, the order passed by the Revisional Court is justified and the order has to be upheld. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 prays to reject the petition. 14. The learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and he prays to reject the petition. 15. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court in rejecting the order of respondent No.1, it is necessary to state the facts in brief. 16. The petitioners are the members of the Panch Committee. According to them, they are in possession and also managing the day-to-day affairs of the Mutt and its - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 properties. Further, it is stated that, they are managing the properties and accounts with the proper administration. There was a dispute between some persons having vested interests over the properties and the Committee. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 denied the existence of a Prabhandak Committee or a Panch Committee or a Board of Management established to administer the said Mutt. In fact, the respondents have submitted that the Mutt belongs to Gosawi sect and the same is administered by the Gosawi sect through their Peetadhipathi. However, the petitioners are members of the Vaishnav cult of Hinduism. They are having no relation whatsoever to the Gosawi Mutt or community. 17. It is further stated that the petitioners are Advocates by profession and politically influenced. The Mutt is having huge properties and also commercial complexes. The petitioners by taking advantage of the dispute, are trying to dominate over the properties. As such, there was an order passed by the jurisdictional police to maintain peace and tranquility in the area. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 18. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, a perusal of column No.17 of the charge sheet indicates that, on 20.10.2014, an application was submitted by the first party, namely, Amaygira s/o. Jagadishgira and the second party, namely, Venkatagira s/o. Maheshgira, stating that the said Mutt belongs to them. However, some unknown persons were trying to dominate over the said Mutt by doing some activities of the Mutt, which is required to be regulated by the jurisdictional police. The second party, namely, M.G. Mahajana, Advocate, Basavakalyan also produced a typed statement stating that the petitioners, namely, Amaygira and others trespassed the properties of the Mutt and also tried to take possession of the properties illegally. Having considered the rival applications submitted by the respective parties and also conducted a spot inspection, the jurisdictional police submitted the final report. The Taluka Executive Magistrate / respondent No.1 passed an order of attachment dated 03.11.2015. On receiving the notice of the said order of attachment, the petitioners herein filed - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 their written statements along with a list of 68 documents before the Authority. 19. The respondent No.1 having gone through the written statements of both sides, passed an order dated 25.08.2022, holding that the petitioners herein were in possession and management of the Mutt and its properties as on the date of taking over the possession by the State. 20. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No.5009/2022 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan. The Revisional Court set aside the order dated 25.08.2022 and directed the petitioners herein to hand over the possession of the properties of the Mutt until finalization of the civil suit. 21. In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Kumar Panda, referred to supra, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 11, held as under: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 “11. There is a difference between a case where the subject-matter of dispute is not attached by the Executive Magistrate under Section 146(1) and the case where it is so attached. Under sub-section (1) of Section 145 a preliminary order taking cognizance of the dispute having been passed, the Magistrate would under sub-section (4) decide who was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the passing of the preliminary order. Consistently with such finding, a declaration by the Magistrate in favour of such party would follow under sub-section (6), entitling it to retain possession over such property until evicted therefrom in due course of law. And until such eviction all disturbances in its possession shall be forbidden. If any party is found to have been forcibly or wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information setting the Magistrate in motion was received by him or between such date and the date of order under sub-section (1), then the party dispossessed has to be fictionally treated as one in possession on the date of preliminary order under sub-section (1). The declaration of entitlement to possession under the proviso to sub-section (4) read with sub- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 section (6) shall be made in favour of such party and the party found to have been so dispossessed forcibly and wrongfully may also be restored into possession. The declaration having been made, it would be for the unsuccessful party to approach the competent court and secure such order as would enable his entering into possession and evicting the party successful in proceedings under Section 145.” 22. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the provision under Section 145 of Cr.P.C., it makes it clear that the Magistrate has to decide who was in possession of the disputed property as on the date of passing of the preliminary order. 23. In the present case, the charge sheet would indicate that the petitioners were in possession of the properties and they were looking after the day-to-day affairs of the Mutt as on the date of passing the preliminary order. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 were trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties of the petitioners, claiming that the said Mutt belongs to them. Such being the fact, the order of respondent No.1, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 in my considered view, appears to be in consonance with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 24. It is needless to say that, the scope of Section 145 of Cr.P.C., would indicate that, the persons who are in possession of the properties as on the date of passing the preliminary orders by the Taluka Executive Magistrate has to be protected. In the present case, the petitioners herein have contended and proved that, they were in possession of the properties of the Mutt as on the date of the passing the preliminary order. Hence, the order of the Revisional Court, in my considered view, is erroneous and illegal. Therefore, the same is unsustainable. 25. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 20.04.2024 in Crl.R.P.No.5009/2022 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan, is set aside. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5882 WP No. 201812 of 2024 iii) The order of the respondent No.1 / the Tahsildar and Taluka Magistrate, Basavakalyan, District Bidar, in MCG/CR- 29/2015-16 dated 25.08.2022, is upheld. iv) No order as to cost. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2