IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2111 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATARAMANA DEVARA TEMPLE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CAR STREET, MANGALURU - 575 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND TRUSTEES

1. A. BALAKRISHNA SHENOY S/O DAMODAR SHENOY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS MANAGING TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE

2. M. KIRAN PAI S/O RAGHUNATH PAI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE

3. M. SATHISH PRABHU S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE

4. K. GANESH KAMATH S/O LATE K. VITTAL KAMATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE

5. M. JAGANNATH KAMATH S/O M. MADHAV KAMATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS TRUSTEE OF SRI. VENKATRAMANA TEMPLE ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDARAMA .K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 575 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER D.K. DISTRICT MANGALORE - 575001.

3 . THE TASHILDAR MANGALORE TALUK MANGALORE - 575001.

4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K. MANGALURU MANGALURU-575001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP .C.S, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 (ANNEXURE AG) PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, MANGALORE, D.K. (R-2 HEREIN)IN NO.

CDIS/SA.KA.BU.THI/66/2024/E-413966, AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners–

Temple assailing the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, produced at Annexure–AG. The petitioners have further sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider its application dated 16.01.2024 and representation dated 10.08.2024, and to carry out mutation of the petitioner’s name as absolute owner/kathedar in the record of rights pertaining to the petition schedule property.

2. The petitioners–Temple claims title over the petition schedule properties on the strength of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos. 860/1993 and 1101/1993, which have been affirmed by this Court in RSA No.1253/2015. The grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of a competent civil Court having declared petitioners as the absolute owners, followed by the mandamus issued by this Court in W.P. No.14050/2024, respondent No.2 has rejected its application on the ground that the property is classified as Government land. Respondent No.2 has relied upon Government Order No. RD 408 GCF 67 dated 21.08.1968, whereby sanction was accorded in favour of the then Mangalore Municipality in respect of 34 cents of land for establishment of a Dhobi Khana, and consequently rejected the petitioners' request.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, placing reliance on the aforesaid civil Court decrees and the judgment of this Court in RSA No.1253/2015, contended that the Assistant Commissioner has deliberately disobeyed the binding decree of the competent civil Court and its affirmation by this Court. He further relied on the order passed in W.P. No.14050/2024 to submit that respondent No.2 has acted in violation thereof also, and that such conduct amounts to gross contempt of Court.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the petitioners have an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy. It was submitted that against an order passed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the petitioners have a remedy of revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. On that premise, it was urged that the present writ petition is not