1. Dispute over ownership and management of a choultry property taken over by the Government under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat – Appellant
Versus
Sri R Raghothaman S/O R Madhava Rao - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 17115 OF 2013 (GM-R/C) C/W WRIT PETITION No. 9306 OF 2013 (GM-R/C)
Decided on : 03-09-2026
Important Points
Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding the title and ownership of immovable properties, as such matters must be decided by a competent Civil Court. Management of notified religious institutions is vested in the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.
Subject
Civil Law - Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act Referred
KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT : S.20(a), S.23, S.28
Headnote
(A) Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Sections 20A, 23, and 28; Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1921 - Section 21 - Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities - Adjudication of title to immovable property - Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to deal with, adjudicate, and decide issues relating to the right, title, and interest in immovable property, as only a competent Civil Court is empowered to do so. (Para 32)
(B) Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Section 20A - Powers and functions of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat - The Rajya Dharmika Parishat is vested with the powers and functions of managing notified religious institutions and charitable endowments, including general superintendence and control. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
Land was granted free of cost to an individual for the specific purpose of constructing a Chathram for public use. Due to mismanagement, the government assumed management of the Chathram and its properties in 1933. A descendant of the original grantee sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to remove the government's management from revenue records, claiming absolute ownership of the property. The Secretary of the Revenue Department passed an order granting the NOC and declaring the respondent as the title holder, despite previous judicial directions to the authorities not to embark upon the question of title.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land grant was specifically for a public Chathram and not as absolute private property. The Secretary of the Revenue Department exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding on the title of the property, contrary to the settled position of law and specific directions issued by the High Court in previous proceedings. Furthermore, under the amended 1997 Act, the authority to manage such institutions rests with the Rajya Dharmika Parishat.
Issues: Whether the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, was justified in passing an order holding that the subject land was granted in favor of the original grantee and that he was the owner in possession, and whether the petitioners made out a case for quashing said order. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate complex and disputed questions of title regarding immovable property, which must be resolved in a competent Civil Court. An order passed by a revenue authority that ignores judicial directions and usurps the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine ownership is unsustainable. Additionally, the statutory management of notified religious institutions is vested in the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. (Paras 32, 36, 40)
Result: W.P.No.17115/2013 and W.P.No.9306/2013 are allowed; Impugned order dated 15.09.2011 passed by respondent No.3 is quashed.
(B) Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 - Section 20A - Powers and functions of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat - The Rajya Dharmika Parishat is vested with the powers and functions of managing notified religious institutions and charitable endowments, including general superintendence and control. (Para 38)
Facts of the case:
Land was granted free of cost to an individual for the specific purpose of constructing a Chathram for public use. Due to mismanagement, the government assumed management of the Chathram and its properties in 1933. A descendant of the original grantee sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to remove the government's management from revenue records, claiming absolute ownership of the property. The Secretary of the Revenue Department passed an order granting the NOC and declaring the respondent as the title holder, despite previous judicial directions to the authorities not to embark upon the question of title.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the land grant was specifically for a public Chathram and not as absolute private property. The Secretary of the Revenue Department exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding on the title of the property, contrary to the settled position of law and specific directions issued by the High Court in previous proceedings. Furthermore, under the amended 1997 Act, the authority to manage such institutions rests with the Rajya Dharmika Parishat.
Issues: Whether the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, was justified in passing an order holding that the subject land was granted in favor of the original grantee and that he was the owner in possession, and whether the petitioners made out a case for quashing said order. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: Revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate complex and disputed questions of title regarding immovable property, which must be resolved in a competent Civil Court. An order passed by a revenue authority that ignores judicial directions and usurps the jurisdiction of civil courts to determine ownership is unsustainable. Additionally, the statutory management of notified religious institutions is vested in the Rajya Dharmika Parishat under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. (Paras 32, 36, 40)
Result: W.P.No.17115/2013 and W.P.No.9306/2013 are allowed; Impugned order dated 15.09.2011 passed by respondent No.3 is quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- property law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. GOKUL Y.P., AND Ms.SUMANA NAGANAND
For the Respondent:SRI. UDAY HOLLA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AAG A/W SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA
For the Appellant :SRI. SRIRANGA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. GOKUL Y.P., AND Ms.SUMANA NAGANAND
For the Respondent:SRI. UDAY HOLLA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIVEK HOLLA., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, AAG A/W SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA
Table of Contents
2. State claimed property was granted for a public choultry; respondent claimed absolute ownership as successor of the grantee. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Revenue authorities exceeded jurisdiction by deciding title; orders from 1933 showing government takeover were final and unchallenged. (Para 8 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
4. Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate title to immovable property, which must be decided by a competent civil court. (Para 32 , 35 )
5. Writ petitions allowed; impugned order declaring respondent as title holder of property is quashed. (Para 42 )
6. Can a revenue authority adjudicate on the title to immovable property?
No, revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide issues of right, title, and interest in immovable property, which must be determined by a competent civil court. (Para 32 , 35 )
7. What is the scope of a direction to consider a representation for a no-objection certificate?
The authority must consider only whether a no-objection certificate should be issued, without embarking upon the question of title to the property. (Para 26 , 27 )
8. Is an unchallenged order from 1933 regarding the takeover of a religious institution binding?
Yes, an order assuming management of a choultry and its properties, which has not been challenged in any competent court, attains finality. (Para 20 )
9. Did the amendment to the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act affect the jurisdiction in this case?
Yes, after the 2011 amendment, the Rajya Dharmika Parishat is vested with powers to consider such representations, and the Commissioner's jurisdiction was affected. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 )
ORDER :
M.G.S. KAMAL, J.
1. Petition in W.P.No.9306/2013 is filed by the State represented by Chief Secretary as well as the Assistant Commissioner, Muzarai Works. While the petition in W.P.No.17115/2013 is filed by the Karnataka Rajya Dharmika Parishat, questioning the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by respondent No.3-The Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department as per Annexure-L in W.P.No.9306/2013 and Annexure-H in W.P.No.17115/2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are:
(a) That the immovable properties bearing Municipal Nos.88, 88/1, 88/2, 88/3, 88/4, 88/10 and 89, measuring 2 acres 34 guntas situated between Krishna Rajendra Road and Pampa Mahakavi Road, Bengaluru city, belonged to one Sri Rai Raya Rai Kollam R.Venkatarao Chathram (hereinafter referred to as `Chathram').
(b) Management of said Chathram and its adjoining properties was taken over by the then Government of Mysore under the Government Order No.1400-04/Muz 222-32-6 dated 03.04.1933. Ever since then, Chathram and its properties are under the control of Muzrai Department. The said order and the proceedings thereof were stayed by the Chief Secretary in terms of order dated 08.09.1934, pending disposal of representation made by one Sri.R.Vasudeva Rao.
(c) Subsequently the said stay was vacated by an order dated 23.03.1937 and order dated 03.04.1933 became final and the same has not been challenged in any competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institution Act, 1921 .
(d) The Government had appointed Dharmadarshi, for managing the affairs of the Chathram, Muzrai department has been paying the tax thereof.
(e) Certain portion of the said land had been leased to Dr.Chikkananjappa, BMS Nursing Home, "Agamatraya Mahamandali", Bengaluru Sri.Krishna Vadiraja Mandira etc. The market value of the property as on the date when the petition was filed was approximately Rs.200/- crores.
(f) Respondent No.1 namely Sri.R.Raghothaman claiming to be the great grandson of Sri.R.Venkatarao and he having succeeded to the said property had earlier filed a petition in W.P.No.35011/2001 seeking direction to the Assistant Director Land Records/enquiry officer to hold an enquiry regarding title of the property in question and to consider the representation dated 31.08.2001. The said writ petition was dismissed on 13.07.2005 directing respondent to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance.
(g) Against the said order of dismissal, respondent No.1 herein had preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.3262/2005 which was disposed of upon the submission made by respondent No.1 that he would not press the relief as sought for. However sought for direction to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institution and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka to consider his representation dated 31.08.2001 for issuance of `no objection certificate', for deletion or removal of the word, "management" by the department of Muzrai. Thus, the issue with regard to claim or title of the property was required to be decided by the competent civil Court and the same has become final.
(h) Respondent No.1 thereafter approached the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in Karnataka, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as `Commissioner') seeking no objection certificate, for deletion or removal of the words "under management" of Department of Muzrai in respect of the aforesaid Chathram in the records of the corporation and for delivery of the possession of the Chathram land and its property to his family.
(i) Respondent No.2 had filed detailed statement of objections. However Commissioner by order dated 07.06.2008 allowed the application holding that the respondent No.1 and his family is entitled to manage the Chathram. In the said order Commissioner had further held that there were no records available before him to demonstrate respondent No.1 or his ancestors were divested of the ownership of the property. Respondent No.1 was directed to approac
