2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41196
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
BASAVARAJ S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJARI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 100309/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100309 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJARI, AGE: YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. WARD NO.8, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. BHIMASHI S/O. APPAYYA PUJARI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. WARD NO.8, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. SHRINIVAS S/O. DONKAPPA PUJARI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA 4. RAMAPPA S/O. KANAPPA PUJARI, PATTIHAL Location: High AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF Court of Karna taka, Dharwad Bench, SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, Dharwad R/O. WARD NO.8, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. SATTEVVA W/O. TAMMANNA PUJARI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SUBHAS S/O. HANAMANTPUJARI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TRUSTEE OF SRI.HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, R/O. NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KALLOLI-591224, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001, 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI SUB-DIVISION, DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, &
DEPARTMENT OF CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, BELAGAVI-590001, TQ/DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, MUDALAGI TALUKA, MUDALAGI-591224, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI
5. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, NADAKACHERI ARABHAVI, ARABHAVI-591306, TQ: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH CHIAGARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE PROPOSED R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.KRA.SAM.DHADAVI/ADALITA/VIVA-05/2024-25 DATED
09.01.2025 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THEREBY APPOINTING THE 5TH RESPONDENT AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE SRI. HANAMANT DEV OF KALLOLI, KALLOLI, TQ.GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI AS PER ANNEXURE-A JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
A. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash the impugned order bearing no.KRA.SAM.DHADAVI/ADALITA/VIVA-05/2024-25 dated 09.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent thereby appointing the 5th respondent as administrator of the sri. Hanamant Dev of Kalloli, Kalloli, Tq.Gokak, Dist.
Belagavi as per Annexure-A justice and equity.
B. Grant such other and further reliefs as are just and necessary in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shriharsha A.
Neelopant, appearing for petitioners, learned AGA-Sri.Ramesh Chigari, appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel Sri.Santosh B. Rawoot, appearing for proposed respondent No.6.
3. The petitioners claim to be the hereditary trustees of Hanumant Dev Temple, Kalloli village, and are said to have been performing pooja and all other rituals since 1988. In the petition, the petitioners have also appended documentary evidence of the petitioners performing the pooja and other incidental activities in the temple.
4. When things stood thus, it transpires that an order is passed on 09.01.2025 appointing respondent No.5 as an Administrator, invoking Section 29 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners are knocking at the doors of this court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, admittedly, in the case at hand, the impugned order passed under Sect