- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1007 OF 2025 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O. SRI. RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT THIGALARA PETE, ANEKALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G B NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MUZARAI DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, 2. THE COMMISSIONER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, ALURU VENKATA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU-560 018. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. TAHSILDAR AND MUZARAI OFFICER ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. 5. SRI POOJARY ARJUNAPPA S/O. LATE POOJARY KULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT SRI DHARAMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. 6. SRI. MANOJ KUMAR S/O. VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. B. S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WP No- 13103/2022 (GM-RC) AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. The present appeal is filed calling in question the order dated 9.4.2025 passed in W.P.No.13103/2022 [subject writ petition]. The learned Single Judge vide the said common order dated 9.4.2025 adjudicated three writ petitions [being W.P.No.13103/2022 (GM- R/C), W.P.No.7092/2025 (GM-R/C) and W.P.No.9045/2025 (GM/RC)]. The said writ petitions pertained to the right to perform Karaga of Dharmaswami Temple, Anekal [Temple]. The writ petitions in W.P.No.13103/2022 and W.P.No.9045/2025 were filed by Poojari Arjunappa and his children. The writ petition in W.P.No.7092/2025 was filed by a rival claimant. The appellant [Chandrappa] was arrayed as respondent No.6 in W.P.No.13103/2022. 2. The relevant facts are that Poojari Arjunappa claims to be in the lineage of hereditary Archaks of the Temple as his forefathers were said to be performing poojas in the Temple for many generations and that the said Poojari Arjunappa is stated to have been carrying Karaga for many years. On account of his old age, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 his grandson Manoj Kumar is said to have become eligible to carry Karaga. 3. The learned Single Judge has noticed the judgment in RA No.46/1983, which was disposed of on 03.04.1984 by the first appellate Court, whereunder the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S.No.395/79 was set aside and an order was passed allowing the claim of Poojari Arjunappa. RSA No.412/1984, which was filed challenging the judgment of the first appellate Court was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, on an application made by the appellant (Chandrappa) to the Tahsildar, he was permitted on 13.04.2011 to perform Karaga in the year 2011. Admittedly, the appellant is not in the lineage of hereditary Archaks. Poojari Arjunappa challenged the said permission granted to Chandrappa in W.P.No.18266/2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 13.09.2011 with a direction to consider the judgment of the Civil Court and pass necessary orders. Poojari Arjunappa filed an application to carry Karaga for the said year, which was rejected. Poojari Arjunappa again filed W.P.Nos.13222-225/2012(GM-R/C), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.7.2012 directing him to approach the Civil Court. The same was the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 subject matter of challenge in W.A.Nos.5719-22/2012 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the Tahsildar was directed to act in terms of the Civil Court’s order and not treating it as a precedent for the ensuing year. The order of the Division Bench was questioned by Chandrappa before the Supreme Court in SLP Nos.26854-57/2013, which was disposed of with a direction to the Tahsildar to take a final decision in the matter. 4. Subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court, the Tahsildar ordered for performance of Karaga by rotation, which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.6097/2017 C/W W.P.No.49540/2016. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2019, directed the Tahsildar to pass orders afresh. Thereafter, due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, no Karaga was performed during the years 2020 and 2021. 5. In the year 2022, the appellant [Chandrappa] submitted an application to the Tahsildar for performance of Karaga, which was granted. The same was challenged by Poojari Arjunappa in W.P.No.13103/2022 [subject writ petition]. Poojari Arjunappa also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.9045/2025 stating that either of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 his sons should be permitted to carry Karaga owing to his old age and not having the requisite strength. The learned Single Judge noticing the fact situation has noticed that only claim by Chandrappa [appellant] is that Ramesh, son of Poojari Arjunappa is obese and unfit to carry Karaga and he has failed to complete the Karaga on earlier occasions. The learned Single Judge has held that the contention put forth by the appellant would not disentitle the right of Poojari Arjunappa or his children, who have agitated since 1983 and there are various orders in their favour granted by the Civil Court as well as this Court. Further, the order of the Tahsildar directing the performance of Karaga by rotation was also found to be without basis. 6. Admittedly, Poojari Arjunappa and his sons claimed an entitlement as hereditary Archaks of the Temple and hence, asserted their right to perform Karaga. No such hereditary right is asserted by the appellant. The Civil Court has categorically recorded a finding that Poojari Arjunappa is entitled to perform Karaga. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing W.P.No.13103/2022 and quashing the orders dated 23.11.2019, 5.4.2022 and 2.4.2025 passed by the Tahsildar. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50933-DB WA No. 1007 of 2025 7. The vehement plea made by the learned counsel for the appellant referring to various prior orders passed would not aid the case of the appellant in view of the admitted position that the right of Poojari Arjunappa and his sons has been recognized as a hereditary right and no such right/assertion has been made/recorded in favour of the appellant. 8. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. 9. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BS/ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13