IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3450 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA SWAMY AND MASANAKAMMA TEMPLE TRUST (REGD)

DUDDA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571405 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI RAMESH

1.

S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DUDDA VILLAGE - 571405 DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

2. SECRETARY SRI D.S. LOKESH, S/O SHANAKRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DUDDA VILLAGE - 571405 DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE TAHASILDAR MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA - 571401.

2. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, DUDDA 1ST CIRCLE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 405.

3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, DUDDA 1ST CIRCLE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 405.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3.

SRI. ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT ON I.A.No.1/2024)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA IN NO. MAG/CR/228/2016-17 DATED 27/01/2024 (AMRKED AS ANNEXURE-F) BY THE ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO GRANT THE PETITIONERS SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a registered trust, and it is represented by its President and Secretary. The petitioner asserts that it oversees the affairs of Sri Veerabhadreshawara Swamy and Masanakamma Temple, Dudda, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk [‘the Temple’]. The petitioner feels wronged by the Official Memorandum issued by the first respondent on January 27, 2024. The first respondent, in issuing this Official Memorandum, has directed the Deputy Tahsildar [the second respondent] to open the hundi and deposit the collections with a Treasury taking control from the Administrator appointed, and the first respondent has also stipulated that the second respondent will be at liberty to take the assistance of the police if there is any resistance.

2. The petitioner asserts rights to oversee the affairs of the Temple contending that it has been managing the affairs of the Temple, that an Archak from the Madiwala Community offers services to the deity and that this has been the tradition for centuries. The petitioner is opposed by another set of persons who contend that they represent the Trust which oversees the Temple and the dispute between them has antecedents which could be stated thus.

2.1 The first respondent in exercise of its powers under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Cr.P.C] has appointed the jurisdictional Revenue Inspector as the Administrator stipulating that Mr. Shivanna S/o Marishetti must offer the services to the deity until further orders. The first respondent has opined that this arrangement would be necessary to ensure that there is no violence between the two rivals.

2.2 The first respondent's order under Section 145 Cr.P.C is called in question before this Court in Crl.P.No.4825/2019. This Court, on 29.03.2023, has sustained the orders observing that the first respondent, after hearing the petitioner and the rival claimants, could appoint a receiver in the best interest of the devotees and to ensure that the serenity of the premises is preserved.

2.3 In the interregnum, the petitioner joined by others have filed suit in O.S.No.306/2023 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya [‘the civil Court’] along with an application for interim injunction against the rival claimants from interfering with the day-to-day services to the deity and the traditional practices. The civil Court has rejected this application by its order dated 11.10.2023. It is af