- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15339 OF 2020 (GM-R/C) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11261 OF 2020 (GM-R/C) WRIT PETITION NO. 24043 OF 2022 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 29125 OF 2023 (GM-R/C) IN WP No. 15339/2020 BETWEEN: 1. J.G. RAMANNA S/O LATE GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. B NALINA W/O LATE J B NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. J V KRISHNAMURTHY S/O VENKATAIAH @ MADDAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 4. J K JAYARAMA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 5. KEMPAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 6. G SRINIVAS S/O LATE GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. THIMMEGOWDA S/O LATE MALLAMMARA DASANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 8. J B VENKATESH S/O PATEL VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 9. J B VENKATEGOWDA S/O LATE SANNABYATAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 10. HUCHCHAPPA S/O LATE KURI THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 11. MARIYAPPA S/O LATE HUCHCHAPPARA PALANNAR VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 12. GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 13. PUTTASWAMI S/O LATE KURI PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 14. GIRIYAPPA S/O LATE BYATAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 15. BETAIAH S/O LATE KODALLI VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 16. VENKATESH J T S/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 17. HOMBALAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 18. J B MUDDABETEGOWDA S/O LATE BETAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 19. MANJULA W/O LATE G V DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 20. PUTTASWAMI S/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 21. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE RAMESH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 22. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE KANI DASANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 23. GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE KIVUDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 24. J G VENKATESH S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 25. SHIVARAJA S/O LATE KENGA BETAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 26. J K MAHALINGAIAH S/O KARITHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 27. ARAVAMMA W/O LATE SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 28. BYATAGOWDA S/O BETAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 29. CHALUVARAJA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 30. K KUMARA S/O KENGA GIRIYANNA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 31. CHIKKAIAH S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 32. G MANJUNATH S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 33. CHANDRA S/O LATE DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 34. THIMMARAYAPPA S/O LATE VENKATAGOWDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 35. J D SRINIVASA S/O LATE DODDAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 36. J V VENKATESH S/O LATE PATEL VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 37. DANIYAKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 38. BALAKRISHNA N., S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 39. J S YOGESH KUMAR S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 40. J THIMMA RAJU S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENT OF JALADIGERE VILLAGE YADIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST-572 142. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (MUZRAI) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, MALE MAHADESHWARA BHAVANA A V ROAD, CHAMRAJPET BANGALORE-560 018. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DC OFFICE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 102. 4. TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKAURU-572 130. 5. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION, KUNIGAL KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKURU-572 111 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER IN NO.KAM.E 36 MOO.AA.BI 2020, DATED 24.07.2020 PASSED BY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA/R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WP NO. 11261/2020 BETWEEN: SRI JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED UNDER THE TRUST ACT, JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - SRI KRISHNAPPA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH A/W SMT. MANJULA DEVI, M.G & SRI.SANJAY KUMAR.K.N, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. MOHAMAD JAMAL SAIT, ADVOCATE) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND MUZRAI VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER MUZRAI DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ALUR VENKATA RAO ROAD CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE - 560 018. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572130. 4. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130. 5. THE SURVEYOR ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572130. RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 5 ARE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A THE GOVERNMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 24TH JULY 2020; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO PASS ANY ORDER TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT IN O.S.NO.11/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISION COURT, AT KUNIGAL. IN WP NO. 24043/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA TEMPLE TRUST AT JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 562 123 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE KARITHIMMAIAH AGED 65 YEARS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH A/W SMT. MANJULA DEVI, M.G & SRI.SANJAY KUMAR.K.N, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B N SHIVANNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL - 572 130. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR - 562 123. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 562 123. 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA MUZRAI DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 562 123. 6. THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA YEDIUR BRANCH, YEDIUR KUNIGAL TALUK. 7. THE MANAGER SYNDICATE BANK NOW CANARA BANK NAGASANDRA BRANCH YEDIUR, KUNIGAL TALUK. 8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KUNIGAL SUB DIVISION HAVING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF JALADIGER VILLAGE YEDIUR HOBLI KUNIGAL - 572 130. 9. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNIGAL CIRCLE KUNIGAL - 572 130. 10. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER AMRUTHUR POLICE STATION - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER HAVING JURISDICTION OF YEDIUR CIRCLE AMRUTHUR KUNIGAL TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO 5, 8 TO 10, R6, R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TAHSILDAR, KUNIGAL TO HAND OVER THE ACCOUNT BEARING NO.00000064194968494 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA, YEDIYUR BRANCH TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OR TO THE TEMPLE TRUSTEE AND ETC. IN WP NO. 29125/2023 BETWEEN: THE JALADIGERE CHIKKAMMA AND DODDAMMA TEMPLE AT : JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL - 572130 REPTD BY THE SECRETARY SRI. KRISHNAPPA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SMT. MANJULA DEVI M.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK KUNIGAL - 572 130. 2. THE REGISTRAR JUDICIAL OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 3. THE REGISTRAR SIRASTHEDAR ATTACHED TO PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE TUMKUR - 572 101. 4. THE ASST., REGISTRAR ATTACHED TO CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION COURT KUNIGAL - 572 130. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572 101. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR - 572 101. 7. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ATTACHED TO KUNIGAL POLICE STATION KUNIGAL - 572 130. 8. SRI J.K. SHIVANNA S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 9. SRI NARAYANASWAMY S/O BYATAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT GURUKRUPA NO 346 11TH MAIN, SRINIVASANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 050. 10. SRI G SRINIVAS S/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER R/AT JALADIGERE VILLAGE YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR - DISTRICT. 11. THE SYNIDCATE BANK PRESENTLY CANARA BANK NAGASANDRA, YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT. 12. THE STATE BANK OF MYSORE PRESENTLY SBI, YEDIYUR BRANCH NO. 6, SIDDALINGESHWARNAGAR KUNIGAL TLAUK TUMKUR DISTRICT REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R10; SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. B.P. RADHA., AGA FOR R1, R5, R6 & R7; R3, R9, R11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. MANJUNATHA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. K. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R10) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO TAKE THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION OF PETITIONER TEMPLE OR ACT AS A RECEIVER TO THE PETITIONER TEMPLE TRUST VIDE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.06.2023 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER ORAL ORDER These writ petitions pertain to a religious institution known and called as "Jaladigeremma (Sri.Chikkamma and Doddamma) Temple Trust" situated at Jaladigere Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, on a property bearing Sy.No.128/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas. 2. Certain disputes arose between the families belonging to Vokkaliga and Kuruba Community's of the locality concerning the aforesaid temple resulting in filing of suits and counter suits. A suit in O.S.No.16/1970 had been filed by one D.Venkategowda and others which culminated in the judgment and order dated 14.07.2005 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.1012/1990 in which it has been held that the aforesaid religious institution is a private institution. 3. Things stood thus, the respondent-state has passed an order dated 24.07.2020 in purported exercise of its power under Sections 42 and 43 of the Hindu Religious Institution Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 declaring the aforesaid temple to be a notified institution. It is this order which is put in question in these batch of writ petitions. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners in W.P.No.15339/2020, submits that the primary grievance of the petitioners therein is that no opportunity of being heard is provided by the respondent-state before issuing the order at Annexure-A resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. He submits since there is a categorical finding by the trial Court and this Court in its order dated 14.07.2005, holding the temple in question to be a private temple, the respondent authority without providing any opportunity to the petitioners herein could not have passed the impugned order. 5. Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.24043/2022 after arguing the matter for sometime on instructions seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the said writ petition. Memo filed to that effect is placed on record. Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 6. As regards the petitioners in W.P.No.11261/2020 and W.P.No.29125/2023, their only grievance is with regard to the exclusion of existing trustees from the management and affairs of the aforesaid institution. Learned counsel submits that - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER taking over of the management and affairs of the institution by the respondent-state without the existing trustees having any role in its administration would cause them great prejudice. He however submits that if a direction is issued to the respondent- state to ensure the safety of the movable and immovable properties of the institution, the purpose of the petition would be served. 7. Heard. Perused the records. 8. Though petitioners in W.P.No.15339/2020 have raised the question with regard to authority and jurisdiction of the respondent-state to issue an order as per Annexure-A in the light of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16/1970 confirmed by this Court in RSA No.1012/1990. Necessary to note that in the said RSA No.1012/1990 this Court had framed following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Government is empowered under Section 17 or 18 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 (the `Act' for short) to pass an order contrary to the finding in the enquiry report of the Muzrai officer exercising appellate power in declaring temples in question as public temples? (2) The effect of repealing of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 and the enactment of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER Endowments Act, 1997 (`the new Act' for short) to the present proceedings?" While answering the aforesaid substantial questions of law this Court at paragraph 18, has held as under: "18. In view of the above discussion while answering the substantial questions of law raised, it has to be held that the lower Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and it has come to the wrong conclusion in holding that the temples are public temples. Further the Government committed an error in acting upon the report of the Muzrai Officer to formulate the scheme and for directing the Muzrai Officer to formulate the scheme and submit the same for its sanction as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. When once the temples are held to be private temples and it is not covered under the definition as noted above, necessarily the Government ought to have proceeded based on the report of the Muzrai Officer. Although it contained a provision regarding mismanagement of the funds of the temples under the scheme, the earlier Act was not wide enough to cover such mismanagement. In that view of the matter, I have to hold that substantial question of law raised regarding application of Section 17 and 18 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act to the temples and acting thereon by the Government is not permissible under law and the same has to be answered in favour of the appellants. As noted above, the effect of repealing the old Act, The Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1927 and on the enactment of the new Act i.e., The Karnataka Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 itself provide for a saving clause under Section 78 whereby applying Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, Acts were not saved. However, as the new Act is wide enough to cover the mismanagement of any of the institutions which are either maintained by the Public or private and if there is a mismanagement by notification or by declaration by the Government, such institution could be taken over or declared as public institution by appointing the trustees or managers as provided under Sections 23 and 42 of the Act. Such act would be contemplated by the Government in future if it comes to the conclusion that there is a mismanagement. In view of the above, while answering the substantial questions of law raised in favour of the appellants, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the lower appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court is reversed thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. No costs". - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 9. Thus, as noted above, this Court had categorically observed that if in the event of respondent-state finding it necessary, it can initiate the proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Act, 1997. That finding and observation has remained unchallenged and attained finality. 10. The order impugned proceeds on the premise that a dispute between the two groups of the village had necessitated issuance of notices under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act calling upon the parties concerned to show cause which remained unanswered, resulting in a report being called for by the concerned authorities. Consideration of the material, prompted the respondent-state to pass the order impugned in this petition. There is considerable force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they have not been given opportunity of being heard before the respondent- state coming to that conclusion. 11. In response, learned Additional Government Advocate pointing out to unnumbered paragraph 4 of the order - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER submits that as many as four notices have been issued and served on the parties concerned and since they have not bothered to respond, the authorities have proceeded to pass the order based on the report received, as such no error or illegality can be found in respondent-state passing the impugned order. 12. On a query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit in unison that presently the aforesaid religious institution is under the management, administration and supervision of Tahsildar, Kunigal. It is further submitted that as and when necessary the said Tahsildar is seeking permission of this Court. 13. Be that as it is. The respondent-state having invoked the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 as found at impugned document at Annexure-A, the only ground which requires consideration is whether the petitioners in these petitions to be provided an opportunity of being heard by the respondent- state. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER 14. Considering the chequered history of this institution, and also the claims and rival claims, this Court deems it appropriate that parties be relegated to respondent No.1, who shall after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard including consideration of their claim of the institution being a private entity, pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. 15. Parties are at liberty to submit and make their representation and furnish such documents if so advised, which shall be taken into consideration and a detailed speaking order in this regard shall be passed. Such exercise shall be undertaken within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 16. The impugned order is kept in abeyance till consideration of representation and passing of the order as directed above. 17. It is further directed that the affairs of the institution, management and supervision of its properties both movable and immovable including cash shall be carried on and managed by the Tahsildar in consultation with the Deputy Commissioner. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1517 WP No. 15339 of 2020 C/W WP No. 11261 of 2020 WP No. 24043 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER He shall also ensure that the daily prayers, rituals and the annual festivals of the temple be carried/conducted in a peaceful and wholesome manner without giving scope for any unruly incidents. With the above observations, writ petitions are disposed of. W.P.No.24043/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn. All contentions of the parties kept open. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30