SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - BENCH AT KALBURAGI
SRI RAJA NEELAKANTA RAO JAGIRADAR AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
THE MINISTER AND ORS – Respondent
WP 223617/2020



Advocates:
['MAHANTESH PATIL', '', '', 'CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI', '', 'GA SD', 'IN CP NO', 'amp; SRIRANGA']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.223617 OF 2020(GM-R/C)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI RAJA NEELAKANTA RAO

JAGIRADAR, S/O VENKATA RAO

JAGIRADAR, AGED 74 YEARS,

PRESIDENT OF BASAVESHWARA

SEVA TRUST (REGISTERED),

ALABANUR, TALUK: SINDHANOOR,

DISTRICT RAICHUR.

2. R.BASAVARAJ PATIL,

S/O ISHWARAPPA,

AGED 52 YEARS, GENERAL SECRETARY

OF BASAVESHWARA SEVA TRUST

(REGISTERED), ALABANUR,

TQ:SINDHANOOR, DIST. RAICHUR.

.... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

And:

1.

THE MINISTER,

KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS

INSTITUTION & CHARITABLE

ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT,

BANGALORE-560 001.

2

2.

THE COMMISSIONER,

KARNATAKA HINDU RELIGIOUS

CHARITABLE & ENDOWMENT

DEPARTMENT,

BANGALORE-560 001.

3.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

RAICHUR-584 101.

4.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

LINGASUGUR SUB-DIVISION,

RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 101.

5.

BASAPPA,

S/O. BASAPPA HUGUR, AGE: 53 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESS, R/O ALBANUR,

TQ: SINDHNUR,

DIST:RAICHUR-584 101.

6.

THE TAHASILDAR,

SINDHANUR TALUK

DIST: RAICHUR- 584101.

....RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.ANURADHA M.DASAI, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.

FOR R1 TO R4 & R6 AND SRI S.SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE

& SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE

FOR C/R5).

--

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SEEKING TO

QUASH (I) ORDER BEARING PRAKARANA NO.KAME20

MUDAPRA 2019 DATED 29.01.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘K’

PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT & (II) ORDER BEARING

NO.ADM:4:CR:200/2016-17

DATED

02-03-2019

VIDE

ANNEXURE ‘H’ PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ETC.,

3

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.04.2021, COMING ON

FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners in this writ petition call in question

the

order

dated

29-01-2020

wherein

the

1st

respondent/Minister for Karnataka Hindu Religious

Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department

has dismissed review petition filed by the petitioners

under Section 63B of the Karnataka Hindu Religious

Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment)

Act,

2011

against

the

order

passed

by

the

Commissioner, Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions

and Charitable Endowments Department, Bangalore

dated 02.03.2019 directing cancellation of Trust and

forfeiting the amount collected by the Trust.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

petition, as borne out from the pleadings are that, one

Raja Dodda Basavantaray, Son of Manappagouda was a

4

Jagiradar

of

Gejjalagatta,

Ankasadoddi

and

Jangamarhalli villages of Lingasugur Taluk and also

Dadesur, Albanur and Katharaki Villages of Sindhanoor

Taluk. Raja Dodda Basavantaray had a son by name

Raja Venkatarao, who had two wives by name

Siddamma and Neelamma. The 1st wife Siddamma gave

birth to a son by name Raja Sharanabasavaraj and the

2nd wife had given birth to 3 sons by name (i) Raja

Shivashankarao, (ii) Raja Mallikarjunarao and (iii) Raja

Neelakantarao, one of whom is the 1st petitioner, 3rd

child of the 2nd wife.

3. It is the claim of the 1st petitioner that about 65

years ago there was a partition in the family in which

Alabanur and Dadesur were allotted to the share of the

1st petitioner. The petitioners have formed a Trust in the

name and style of “Sri Basaveshwara Seva Trust (Regd.)

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust’ for short). The

family members of the 1st petitioner are managing

5

Basaveshwar Temple, Alabanur as hereditary trustees.

It is the claim of the 1st petitioner that all the records

pertaining to the said temple were in the name of 1st

petitioner’s ancestors and now in the name of 1st

petitioner as its hereditary trustee. It is the further

claim of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner who was

aged about 74 years being unable to maintain the

temple due to his old age, without cha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top