- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.7966 OF 2014 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.50839 OF 2013 IN WP No. 7966/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY (R) RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009. REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VISHWANATH H.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560001. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU -562106. 5. THE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY ANEKAL YOJANA PRADIKARA, NO.430, HENNAGAR GATE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560099. 6. 7. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. SATELLITE TOWN RING ROAD AUTHORITY NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7; R6 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2014, BEARING NO.KAMEI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 76 LRA 2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2014 BEARING NO.AIN(A)(S) SR 27/11-12 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNNEXURE-B; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2014, BEARING NO.DVS/CR/48/11-12 LRF/CR/101/13-14 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNX - S; AND ETC. IN WP NO.50839/2013 BETWEEN 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA *SINCE DECEASED, BY LRS. PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 6 2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.6, TINDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 125. 3. SRI. VASUDEVAIAH S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.90B, SECOND FLOOR, OFFICERS MODEL COLONY, T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057. *corrected vide Court Order dated 09.03.2026 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 4. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O NARAYANAPPA, D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT SINGENA AGRAHARA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 100. 5 . SMT. DYAVAMMA @ DEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LAGUMAPPA, 6 . SMT. PAPAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA, D/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.5 AND 6 ARE R/AT HOSUR HOBLI & TALUK, VADDARAPALLI VILLAGE, DEVARAPALLI POST, BAGALUR HOBLI, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU -560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, AND MUZARAI OFFICER, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. 5. SRI. JAGADJYOTHI BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE TRUST (R) SARJAPURA VILLAGE AND HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 125 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE. 6. 6(a). 6(b). B C BHOGAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. SRI. B. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE B.C. BHOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. SMT. SUJATHA W/O LATE B.C. BHOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 6(a) & 6(b) ARE R/AT SNS GAS OPP. SYNDICATE BANK SARJAPURA, ATTIBELE HOBLI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 6(c). ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107. SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE B.C. BHOGAPPA W/O SRI. MALLESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS INDLUBLE KUMARA LAYOUT ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT. 7 . JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (REGD) NO.9,RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ASHOK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. MITHUN G.A., ADVOCATE FOR LRS. OF DECEASED R6 I.E. R6(a) TO R6(c); SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.M. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION/ORDER DATED 08.4.2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 i.e. ANNEX-J AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION;TO DECLARE THAT THE GIFT DEED DATED 09.4.2010 EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5-TRUST IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT NO.7 - EDUCATIONAL - SOCIETY (AS RECTIFIED BY THE - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 RECTIFICATION DEED DATED 7.7.2010 i.e. ANNEX- K & L) IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN SY.NO.128/1 OF TINDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT, MEASURING 2 ACRES 07 GUNTAS, IS NULL AND VOID AB- INITIO AND DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER BIND OR AFFECT THE SAID LANDS AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 & 7 HAVE ANY MANNER OF RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LANDS; AND ETC. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV ORDER 1. In writ petition No.7966/2014, petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1, order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.3; and order dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure-S) passed by the respondent No.4. 2. In writ petition No.50839/2013, petitioners are assailing the Notification (Annexure-J) dated 08.04.2010, passed by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 respondent No.1, Gift Deed (Annexure-K) dated 09.04.2010, executed by the respondent No.5 in favour of the respondent No.7 - Educational Society, and the Rectification Deed (Annexure-L) dated 07.07.2010, to quash the mutation entry in respect of the subject land in MR No.76/2010-11 (Annexure-M), made in favour of the respondent No.7, inter alia, sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to remove the illegal construction put-up by the respondent No.7 by conferring occupancy right in respect of the petitioners being the legal heirs of Archak late Muniswamy under the provisions of Mysore (Religious and Charitable Institutions) Act, 1927, in respect of Sy.No.128/1 of Thindlu village, Anekal Taluk, to an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas. 3. The brief facts in nutshell in WP No.7966/2014 are that, the petitioner-Society is providing education to students from various sects of the society. It is stated that, one Sree Jagathjyothi Basaveswara Temple Trust (Regd.) had gifted the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.128/1 situate at Thindlu Village, Anekal Taluk, in favour of the petitioner-Society as per the resolution dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure-C). It is also stated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 that the petitioner-Society had converted the land for the purpose of construction of school building, based on the report of the respondent No.5 and accordingly, order of conversion was made on 08.04.2010 (Annexure-G). It is further stated in the writ petition that, since there is a typographical error in Gift deed mentioned above, the rectification of deed was made on 07.07.2011 (Annexure-K). Thereafter, the respondent No.5 had issued sanction plan for construction of school building on 23.09.2011 (Annexure-L) and the photographs of the school building are produced at Annexure-M. In the backdrop of these aspects, though the said land was gifted by the Jagathjyothi Basaveswara Temple Trust (Regd.) as per Annexures - H and K in favour of the petitioner - Society and order of conversion has been made on 08.04.2010, the respondent-Authorities have illegally passed the order (Annexure-A) dated 04.01.2014 stating that the land in question is Inam land and same has been granted in favour of the said Jagathjyoti Basaveswara Temple Trust and accordingly, quashed the order of conversion vide official memorandum dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-B) and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner-Society has presented this Writ Petition. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 4. In WP No.50839/2013, petitioners claim to be wife and children of late Muniswamappa, who was the Archak of Basaveswara Temple at Thindlu Village, Anekal Taluk, which is a Muzrai Temple. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in question belonged to Basaveswara Temple and late Muniswamppa and others were cultivating the land in question and after the death of said Muniswamappa during the year 1979, the petitioners are in cultivation of the land in question. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent No.6-B.C. Bhogappa falsely claimed to be the Archak of the Temple in question, and further claims that he was the adopted son of Muniswamma and as such made an application in Form No.7A claiming grant under Section 77-E of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The said Form 7A filed by the respondent No.6 came to be allowed and thereafter, the respondent No.5-Trust has challenged the same before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the said appeal came to be allowed and thereafter, Writ Petition No.51/2007 was filed by said B.C. Bhogappa - respondent No.6 before this Court, which came to be dismissed. It is the contention of the petitioners that the land in question is an inam land and revenue records stand in the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 name of S.B. Gubba Setty and thereafter, his son S.G. Basavaraja claiming to be one of the trustees of the respondent No.5-Trust, falsely claimed that the property belonged to the respondent No.5 - Trust. It is the main contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.5-Trust and respondent No.7-Society entered into conspiracy to knockoff the land in question and therefore, it is the case of the petitioners that the order made in favour of the respondent-Trust as per Annexure- K to Gift the land in question in favour of the respondent No.7- Society is illegal and accordingly, sought for confirmation of occupancy right in favour of Archak-late Muniswamy (father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6). 5. Heard Sri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Vishwanath H.M., learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7966/2014, and respondent No.7 in Writ Petition No.50839/2013, Sri. Siddharath Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.50839/2013; Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 7 in W.P.No.7966/2014 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 and Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Sri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.50839/2013 - Trust, namely, Sree Jagathjyoti Basaveswara Temple Trust, is a private Trust and the said Trust has passed Resolution dated 15.12.2008 (Annexure-C) to gift the land bearing Sy. No. 128/1 and 128/2, measuring 02 acres, 07 guntas, in favour of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner- Society, made an application under Section 109 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 seeking permission to accept the gift. It is also submitted that, after the permission granted by the respondent No.1 on 08.04.2010, registered gift deed was executed in favour of the petitioner - Society on 09.04.2010 and thereafter, rectification of the gift deed was made on 07.07.2011, which would establish the genesis of right claimed by the petitioner - Society. 7. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent - Government has not produced any material to substantiate that the land in question is an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 inam land and further invited the attention of the Court to the RTC extracts at Annexure-R2 in the statement of objections filed by the respondent - State wherein it is stated at column No.9 that, the land in question "§¸ÉéñÀégÀ zÉêÀgÀÄ" and in column No.12 it is stated that, "ªÀÄĤ±ÁªÀÄ¥Àà" is cultivating the land in question and therefore, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the land in question is not an inam land and as such, the finding recorded with regard to the same, requires to be interfered with in this Writ Petition. 8. 8. Nextly it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the land in question was converted for non agricultural purpose on 07.07.2011 (Annexure-K) and thereafter the petitioner - Society made an application seeking sanction plan to construct the building and accordingly, as per the order dated 23.09.2011 (Annexure-L), sanction was accorded by respondent No.5 and the petitioner - Society has constructed the building by investing more than 13 Crores as on 2013, and therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, the conversion order duly passed by respondent No.3 ought not have been cancelled as - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 per Annexure-B dated 31.01.2014, and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 9. Nextly, by referring to Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and Section 8 and 9 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, Sree Jagathjyothi Basaveshwara Temple Trust gifted the schedule land in favour of the petitioner - Society and therefore, as the land in question does not come within the purview of Section 8 and 9 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, and as such, private respondents in the connected Writ Petition have no legal right and accordingly, call for dismissal of W.P.No.50839/2013 filed by petitioners claiming occupancy rights in respect of subject land. 10. Per contra, Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 7, submitted that, the construction of the building has been put up without the approval of the respondent No.5 and in this regard the Planning Authority has to take decision in the matter as per Section 17 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Siddharth Baburao, reiterates the averments made in the statement of objections and contended that, the land in question was not possessed by the donor of the petitioner - Society and further, the land in question was mortgaged in favour of one Billeswara Society and therefore, the revenue records in respect of the land in question do not envisage the ownership of the petitioner - society, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 12. In W.P.No.50839/2013, Sri. Siddharth Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that, the petitioners are the legal heirs of Archak of Basaweswara Temple and further the land in question is an inam land, and the impugned order at Annexure-A was passed without affording opportunity to the petitioners herein and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to the revenue records and particularly referring to index of land, in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.128/1 of Tindlu Village, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 that the land in question is a Devadaya Inam land attached to Sri. Basaveswara Devaru and that apart, the temple being a Muzrai Institution, it is the duty of the respondent - authorities to protect the interest of the temple and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition act, 1955, that the father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 - Muniswamappa was cultivating the land in question, further tasdik allowance was sanctioned in favour of the Archak and therefore, it is submitted that, the land in question has to be protected by conferring occupancy rights in favour of the legal heirs of Muniswamappa. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the name of Sri. S.B. Gubba Setty was wrongly entered in the RTC extracts for year 1984-85 onwards, despite the temple in question is a Muzrai temple and land vests with the State Government and therefore, entering the name of said Sri. S.B. Gubba Setty in the revenue records is illegal, that led to anomaly in the revenue records resulting in claim made by the respondent Nos.5 and 7, and respondent No.5 in collusion with the respondent No.7 - Society committed fraud on the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 State Government and obtained an illegal order as per Annexure-J and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 13. It is further argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the registered gift deed at Annexures-K and L made in favour of respondent No.7 - Society by respondent No.5 - Trust are products of collusion and fraud based on wrong entries made in the RTC extracts and that apart, the Tahsildar who himself a Muzrai Officer, has passed the order behind the back of the State Government to effect mutation in favour of respondent No.7 in M.R.No.76/2010-11 (Annexure-M), and therefore, it is submitted that, interference is called for in this Writ Petition. 14. It is further submitted that, as per Section 9 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927, no alienation or transfer of any inam land granted by the Government in favour of a Muzrai Institution, for the purpose of maintenance of any person rendering service, namely Archak, shall be valid unless same is authorised by the Government order, however, the said aspect of the matter was ignored by - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 respondent No.4, and as such sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by referring to the order dated 17.04.2007 in W.P.No.51/2007 (Annexure-F), that this Court has rejected the claim made by the petitioner therein - B.C. Bhogappa, and therefore, all further actions / deeds said to have been made by the respondent Nos.5 and 7 are illegal and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 15. Per contra, Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State in W.P.No.50839/2013, sought to defend the impugned order, and contended that Muniswamappa or his legal heirs are not the Archakas of the temple in question and no application is filed by them seeking occupancy right in respect of the land in question and the entire claim of the petitioners in respect of the land in question is covered under Section 6A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955, which accordingly, has become futile and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition No.50839/2013. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 16. Sri. S.M. Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 in W.P.No.50839/2013, reiterates the arguments advanced in W.P.No.7966/2014 and contended that, since the land in question is not an inam land and therefore, the entire claim made by the petitioners requires to be rejected. It is also submitted that, the land was not vested with the Government and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the orders passed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondent No.7. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, after verifying the records, rightly arrived at a conclusion based on the documents on record that the land in question is not a tenanted land and the said finding requires to be confirmed in these writ petitions. 17. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner in W.P.No.7966/2015 claims ownership in respect of the subject land based on the registered gift dated 09.04.2010 (Annexure- H) executed by Sri Jagathjyothi Basaweshwara Temple Trust (Regd.), as per the resolution of the said Trust dated - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 15.12.2008(Annexure-C) and the registered gift dated 09.04.2010 (Annexure-H). It is also to be noted that the petitioner - society has made an application in No.LRF/109(A)C.R.6/09-10, seeking acceptance of the gift and the respondent No.1 granted permission on 08.04.2010 (Annexure-G) and thereafter registered gift deed was executed as per Annexure-H. On careful examination of Annexure-L issued by respondent No.5 - Anekal Planning Authority, makes it clear that the said authority has issued letter dated 23.09.2011 (Annexure-L) according permission for construction of the school building. It is also forthcoming from the Notification dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-G), wherein the land in question was converted for non agricultural purpose. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.5 - Anekal Planning Authority having accorded permission for construction of school building, resulting in issuance of order of conversion by the competent authority and thereafter took decision to set aside the order of according permission to construct building, and further issuing notice dated 03.02.2014 under Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act as per Annexure-R, which is incorrect and illegal. It is to be noted that, the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order at Annexures - A and B, based upon a false notion that; (a) land in question is a Government land and further the said land is an inam land without any cogent material, which is contrary to the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.167/2004 and therefore, the said action of the respondent - authority requires interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled principle in law that, once the order of conversion has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the said authority becomes functus officio and has no authority to recall the order of conversion and the said authority has no jurisdiction to review its own order and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondent- authorities requires to be set aside. 18. It is also to be noted that, as the petitioners in W.P.No.50839/2013 are claiming right over the property being legal representatives of the Archakas of the temple in question, accordingly, the core question to be answered in the said petition as to, whether the land in question is an inam land as on the date of passing of the impugned order at Annexures-A - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 and B in W.P.No.7966/2014. It is also to be noted that, as evident from the proceedings in LRF/7A/488/1998-99 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Division, wherein, the respondent No.6, has filed application under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the said competent authority granted occupancy rights as per order dated 22.07.2002 and the said order was questioned by the respondent No.5-Trust, in Appeal No.167/2004 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated 24.01.2006, (Annexure-R1) allowed the appeal, consequently rejected the Form No.7A, filed by the- B.C. Bhogappa and the said order was questioned before this Court, in W.P.No.51/2007, and this court dismissed the Writ Petition on 17.04.2007 which was ultimately confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. NO.1087/2007. On careful examination of the finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the above appeal, makes it clear that, the land in question is neither a granted land nor an Inam Land. It is relevant to state that, respondent No.6 has filed O.S. No. 233/2010 in respect of the land in question which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court and therefore, the claim made by - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 the respondent No.6, has no basis and therefore, as the petitioner in W.P.No.50839/2013, claiming right through the respondent No.6 therein, I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out a case for interference in this writ petition. it is also to be noted that, the respondent No.5-Trust not belonged to Muzrai Department and further the respondent No.5-Trust is a private trust in terms of Endorsement dated 11.09.2009 (Annexure-R7) in the Statement of Objections filed in W.P.No.50839/2013. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.50839/2013 submitted that, the respondent No.5 is not existing and the said trust has been created fraudulently and transferred the subject land as per the gift deed dated 09.04.2010 made in favour of one Kishore Sharma, and the said aspect of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.50839/2013 is based on disputed question of facts as well as lack of locus standi to maintain the writ petition. No material has been produced by the petitioner to show that they were tenants as per Section 6 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolitions Act, - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 1955 and the petitioners have not produced any records to show that, they were paying rent to the respondent- Government. It is pertinent to mention here that, if at all the petitioners were claiming right over the property, as the land in question is Inam Land and if such being the case, the petitioners ought to have made an application under Section 9 of the Act, and in the absence of the same, no interference is called for in W.P.No.50839/2013. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.167/2004, dated 24.01.2006 has arrived at a conclusion that, land is not vested with the State Government and same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1087/2017. The finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.167/2004 makes it clear that the land in question is not a tenanted land and not vested with the Government and therefore, no interference is called for in W.P.No.50839/2013, as the Tribunal after appreciating the material on record, rightly dismissed the claim made by the petitioners in W.P.No.50839/2013. 19. Nextly, yet another ground to be considered by looking into the prayers in W.P.No.50839/2013 wherein, the petitioner - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 has sought for quashing the gift deed dated 09.04.2010 said to have been executed by the respondent No.5-Trust in favour of respondent - Education Society and this Court has no jurisdiction to nullify the registered Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010 as, enquiry has to be conducted in such circumstances and further, it is a matter of civil nature which cannot be interfered with, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and looking into the records, would indicate that, there is no basis for arriving at a conclusion that, the land in question is Inam land. 20. I have also noticed from the writ papers that, the petitioner in W.P.No.7966/2014 is an Educational Institution and put up huge construction/building in the subject land which is for the benefit of the public in the said locality as per Annexures-M to Q and therefore, interference at this stage would come in the way of running the Educational Institution as the said land has been converted as per notification dated 08.04.2010 by the respondent-Government and that apart, the Tahasildar, Anekal has given Endorsement that the Temple in - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 question Sree Basaveswara Temple, is not a notified temple and further the land in question is not an Inam land and taking into consideration these totality of undisputed factual aspects on record, I pass the following: ORDER i) W.P.No.7966/2014 is hereby allowed; ii) Order dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1, Order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and letter dated 03.02.2014(Annexure-S) in W.P.No.7966/2014 issued by respondent-Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, are hereby set aside. Consequently, respondent-authorities are directed to enter the name of the petitioner-Sri. Jagadguru Renukacharya Education Society, in the revenue records in respect of subject land. iii) W.P.No.50839/2013 is hereby dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [SRI JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS] 20.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER ON I.A.1/2025 Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.7966/2014 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both the petitions. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by this Court, particularly with regard to paragraph No.17 and submitted that prayer No.5 culled out in the amended petition is required to be set aside in view of the finding recorded by this Court. In that view of the matter, the order dated 17.02.2014 vide No.ADA/LAO/106/2011-12 (Annexure-T), passed by - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29750 WP No. 7966 of 2014 C/W WP No. 50839 of 2013 Anekal Planning Authority - respondent No.5, is hereby quashed. The order passed by this Court quashing Annexure-T referred to above shall be read along with the Order dated 30.07.2025, passed by this Court. I.A.1/2025 stands allowed accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16