STATE OF KARNATAKA vs SRI. JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1142 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE,
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE TAHSILDHAR,
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDHAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-562 106.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI. JAGADGURU RENUKACHARYA
EDUCATION SOCIETY (R)
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 009.
REPRESENTED ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY
ANEKAL YOJANA PRADIKARA,
NO.430, HENNAGAR GATE,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 099.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BESCOM, SARJAPURA, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
BENGALURU-562 106.
4. SATELLITE TOWN RING
ROAD AUTHORITY
NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU -560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH H.M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 & R4 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A)SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 30/07/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.7966/2014 BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION
WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS AND B) ISSUE ANY OTHER
ORDER/DIRECTIONS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
Property dedicated to a deity is not the personal
estate of the trustee, nor is it a property available for
disposal at the pleasure of whoever happens to
administer the temple. The deity is the owner; the
trustee is only a custodian, entrusted with the duty of
preserving and protecting the property for the deity and
the worshippers. As the saying goes, “The custodian may
hold the keys to the temple, but he does not hold the
title to the deity’s property.” The office of trustee is a
sacred responsibility and not a licence to alienate what
has been dedicated to God. A person entrusted with the
protection of temple property cannot turn around and
deal with it as though it were his own. “What is offered
to God cannot become the personal bounty of the person
who receives it in trust.” When those entrusted with its
protection seek to dispose of it, the law must step in to
protect the rights of the deity. One may well say that
when the custodian fails in his duty, it is for the law to
stand guard over the property of the deity. A gift of such
property, without lawful authority, cannot be sustained
merely because it is clothed in the form of a registered
instrument or supported by a stated public purpose.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
The present writ appeal has been filed by respondent
Nos.1 to 4, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.7966/2014 (KLR-RES), whereby the writ petition filed by the
petitioner-Society challenging the orders dated 04.01.2014,
31.01.2014 and 03.02.2014, concerning the land bearing
Sy.No.128/1, measuring 2 acres 7 guntas, situated at Thindlu
Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk (for short, ‘Subject
Land’ ), came to be allowed, with a direction to the revenue
authorities to enter the name of the petitioner-Society in the
revenue records in respect of the Subject Land.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to herein by their respective rankings before the
learned Single Judge.
(i) CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The petitioner, Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya
Education Society (for short, ‘petitioner-Society’ ), is an
educational institution established for imparting education to
students belonging to different sections of society. It is the case
of the Society that Sri Jagathjyothi Basaveswara Temple Trust
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
(Regd.), Sarjapura (for short, ‘the Trust’ ), by its resolution
dated 15.12.2008, resolved to gift the Subject Land, in favour
of the petitioner-Society.
4. The petitioner-Society claims that the Trust, after
obtaining permission from the State Government, executed a
registered Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010 in its favour. The
petitioner-Society had earlier approached the Government
seeking permission to accept the gift under Section 109 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the Government
accorded such permission by order dated 08.04.2010. It is
further stated that, owing to certain errors in the description of
the property in the original Gift Deed, a Rectification Deed was
executed on 07.07.2010.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner-Society that it
secured conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes by
order dated 26.04.2011 and thereafter approached respondent
No.5/Town Planning Authority for permission to establish an
educational institution. Respondent No.5 issued the single-site
approval dated 23.09.2011 for educational purposes. The
petitioner-Society asserts that, acting upon the permissions
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
granted by the competent authorities, it proceeded with the
construction of the school building and had invested substantial
amounts towards the establishment of the institution.
6. While matters stood thus, respondent No.1, by
order dated 04.01.2014, took the view that the Subject Land
was Government Inam land and directed the Deputy
Commissioner to take appropriate action. Consequent thereto,
the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 31.01.2014,
withdrew the conversion order, and the Tahsildar, Anekal, by
communication dated 03.02.2014, issued a show cause notice
calling upon the petitioner-Society to explain as to why the
Single Site Layout Plan approved under Section 76(O) of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (' KTCP Act '
for brevity), should not be cancelled. Aggrieved therefrom, the
petitioner-Society instituted W.P. No.7966/2014 seeking to
quash the said orders dated 04.01.2014, 31.01.2014 and
03.02.2014.
(ii) OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.4:
7. The respondents opposed the writ petition and
respondent No.4 has filed their Statement of Objections
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
contending that the petitioner-Society had not approached the
Court with complete disclosure of the relevant revenue records.
Upon verification of the historical records, it was noticed that
Sy.No.128/1 of Thindlu Village originally stood recorded in the
name of "Basaveshwara Devaru", Thindlu, and that the manual
RTC entries from 1960-61 up to 1988-89 reflected the said
name in Column No.9. Further, the name of Munishamappa
appeared in the cultivator's column, i.e., Column No.9, up to
1983-84, whereas the name of S.B. Gubba Shetty was entered
as cultivator from the year 1984-85.
8. It was further pointed out that, from 1989-90
onwards, the name of Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu , came to
be changed as Basaveshwara Devaru, Sarjapura , though the
temples at Thindlu and Sarjapura are situated at different
places, separated by a distance of approximately two
kilometres. It was also contended that the subsequent revenue
entries and the material produced by the petitioner-Society did
not establish the Trust's ownership or lawful possession of the
Subject Land.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
9. It was further contended that the Khethawar
Register maintained from 1926-27 disclosed that the Subject
Land was recorded in the name of 'Basavanna Devaru' as
Khathedhar and was described as ' Basavanna Devaru Inamthi'
at Sl.No.277 in the Register of Record of Rights. The
Commissioner, Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and
Charitable Endowments, by communication dated 09.04.2013,
had also indicated that the land was Inam land.
10. Reliance was also placed upon the historical RTC
extracts, the Index of Lands, the Khethawar Register and other
revenue records to contend that the Trust, which came into
existence only in 1985, had no right, title or interest over the
property and could not have conveyed a valid title to the
petitioner-Society by executing the Gift Deed dated
09.04.2010. It was, therefore, asserted that the Gift Deed
could not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner-
Society and that the State Government was justified in
examining the legality of the earlier permission and the
consequential conversion proceedings. On these grounds, the
respondents sought dismissal of the writ petition.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
(iii) OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.5:
11. Respondent No.5, Anekal Planning Authority, filed
its statement of objections contending that it was constituted
on 19.07.2006 under Section 4C of the KTCP Act, for regulating
development and land use within its jurisdiction. It submitted
that the certificate dated 23.09.2011 merely granted single-site
approval under Section 17 of the KTCP Act for educational
purposes and did not constitute permission to commence
construction.
12. It is further submitted that the certificate dated
23.09.2011 itself stipulated that the petitioner-Society was
required to obtain further development permission and comply
with the conditions imposed by the Planning Authority. No
building plan had been submitted or sanctioned, and the
construction undertaken by the petitioner-Society was therefore
unauthorised.
13. It was further contended that, after receipt of the
State Government's order dated 04.01.2014 and the Deputy
Commissioner's order dated 31.01.2014, respondent No.5
issued a show-cause notice dated 03.02.2014 calling upon the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
petitioner-Society to explain why the single-site approval
should not be cancelled. Thereafter, by order dated
17.02.2014, the Authority cancelled the single-site approval
granted on 23.09.2011 and sought dismissal of the writ
petition.
(iv) ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
14. The learned Single Judge, by order dated
30.07.2025, allowed W.P.No.7966/2014. While considering the
rival contentions, the learned Single Judge noticed that the
petitioner-Society had obtained permission from the
Government on 08.04.2010 to accept the gift from the Trust,
pursuant to which, the registered Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010
came to be executed.
15. The Court also took note of the conversion granted
for non-agricultural purposes, vide order dated 26.04.2011,
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, and the certificate dated
23.09.2011, issued by respondent No.5. It was observed that
the State Government had proceeded on the premise that the
land was Government land without placing cogent material in
support of such conclusion. The learned Single Judge further
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
held that, once the Deputy Commissioner had passed the
conversion order, the authority had become functus officio and
could not recall or review its own order in the absence of
jurisdiction to do so.
16. The learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the
order dated 24.01.2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No.167/2004, which had been affirmed by
this Court in W.P. No.51/2007 and W.A. No.1087/2007, while
considering the nature of the land to be neither granted land
nor tenanted land. The learned Single Judge observed that
there was no sufficient material to conclude that the subject
land was Inam land or that it had vested in the Government.
17. Taking note of the educational institution
established on the land and the construction undertaken for the
benefit of the public, the learned Single Judge held that
interference at that stage would affect the functioning of the
institution. Accordingly, the orders dated 04.01.2014,
31.01.2014 and 03.02.2014 were set aside and the revenue
authorities were directed to enter the name of the petitioner-
Society in the revenue records in respect of the subject land.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have
preferred the present writ appeal.
(v) GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
18. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would, inter alia , contend
that the learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate the
historical revenue records, particularly the Khethawar Register
of 1926-27, the RTC extracts and the entries relating to
Basavanna Devaru, which establish the character of the Subject
Land to be Government land and do not support the claim of
ownership set up by the petitioner-Society.
19. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought
to have examined whether the Trust, which came into existence
in 1985, possessed any lawful right or title to execute the Gift
Deed dated 09.04.2010 and whether the subsequent
Rectification Deed dated 07.07.2010 could cure the alleged
defect in the title of the donor, i.e., the Trust. It is further
contended that the permission granted under Section 109 of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the consequential
conversion proceedings could not, by themselves, confer title
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
upon the petitioner-Society or validate a transaction executed
by a person having no subsisting right over the property.
20. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge also failed to consider the distinction between the
conversion of land and the legality of the underlying title, and
the consequences arising from the subsequent verification of
the revenue records. It is also contended that the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding the authority of
the Deputy Commissioner and the effect of the earlier
proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal have
resulted in an erroneous conclusion, without properly
considering the material placed by the State.
21. The direction to enter the name of the petitioner-
Society in the revenue records, notwithstanding the serious
dispute concerning the title of the Trust and the nature of the
land, is therefore assailed as legally unsustainable. On these
grounds, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seek setting aside of the order
dated 30.07.2025 and dismissal of the writ petition.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
(vi) POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
22. We have heard Shri S.H.Raghavendra, Additional
Government Advocate, appearing for appellants/respondent
Nos.1 to 4; Shri Vishwanath H.M., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner-Society and we have carefully perused the
records of the case before us. As such, the only point that
arises for our consideration is:
Whether appellants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have
made out a ground to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge?
(vii) ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
23. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that the
controversy in the present appeal is confined to Sy.No.128/1,
measuring 2 acres 7 guntas, situated at Thindlu Village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, i.e., Subject Land. Though
certain documents and pleadings refer to Sy.No.128/2,
measuring 2 acres 21 guntas, the said survey number is not
the subject matter of the present appeal. The references to
Sy.No.128/2 are only incidental and no finding is called for in
respect of the said property. It is also relevant to clarify that
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
W.P. No.50839/2013 was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge and the said order has not been challenged in the
present appeal. Consequently, the dismissal of W.P.
No.50839/2013 remains undisturbed. The present
consideration is restricted to the correctness of the order dated
30.07.2025 passed in W.P. No.7966/2014 (KLR-RES).
24. The principal question that arises for consideration
is whether the Trust had established a lawful right, title or
interest in Sy.No.128/1 so as to convey the same to the
petitioner-Society under the registered Gift Deed dated
09.04.2010. The petitioner-Society relies upon the Government
permission dated 08.04.2010, the Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010,
the rectification deed dated 07.07.2010 and the subsequent
conversion order dated 26.04.2011. The State, on the other
hand, disputes the very title of the Trust and contends that the
historical revenue records disclose that the property stood in
the name of Basavanna Devaru/Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu,
and that the Trust had no authority to convey the same. This
objection goes to the root of the Society’s claim and could not
have been treated as a mere dispute concerning mutation or
conversion.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
25. The statement of objections filed by the
respondents specifically refers to the historical revenue entries
relating to Sy.No.128/1. It is stated that the total extent of
Sy.No.128 is 4 acres 30 guntas and that Sy.No.128/1 measures
2 acres 9 guntas, including 2 guntas of kharab, leaving an
effective extent of 2 acres 7 guntas. The manual RTC entries
from 1960-61 to 1988-89 disclose the name of Basaveshwara
Devaru, Thindlu, in Column No.9. The name of Munishamappa
appears in Column No.12 up to 1983-84, and thereafter, the
name of S.B. Gubba Shetty is reflected from the year 1984-85
onwards. From 1989-90 onwards, the description in the
ownership column is stated to have changed to Basaveshwara
Devaru, Sarjapura. These entries assume significance because
they disclose a distinction between the person or deity shown
as the holder of the land and the individuals whose names were
entered as cultivators.
26. The State has further relied upon the Khethawar
Register maintained from 1926-27, which, according to its
statement of objections, records Basavanna Devaru as the
khatedhar in respect of 2 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.128/1 and
describes the holding as “Basavanna Devaru Inamthi”. The old
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
RTC extracts, including those relating to 1959-60, 1969-70 and
1973-74, are also relied upon to show the continued reference
to Basavanna Devaru in the ownership column. In particular,
the RTC for 1959-60 is stated to reflect the name of Basavanna
Devaru in respect of 2 acres 7 guntas, excluding 2 guntas of
kharab. These are historical records which predate the
constitution of the Trust itself. Their evidentiary value and the
circumstances in which the entries came to be made were
required to be examined before accepting the Trust’s claim of
ownership.
27. In this context, the settled legal position concerning
the juristic personality of a Hindu deity and its ownership of
endowed property assumes importance. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Pujari
1
Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti and Another , reiterated that a
deity is a juristic person and that property dedicated to the
deity belongs to the deity. The priest or pujari is entrusted with
the performance of worship and the management of the temple
and its property; such duties do not, by themselves, confer
proprietary rights or the status of a tenant upon him. The
1
(2021) 10 SCC 222.
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
distinction between the ownership of the deity and the
managerial functions of the priest or custodian is well
recognised. The principles laid down in Bishwanath v. Shri
2
Thakur Radha Ballabhji also recognise the juristic character
of the deity and the legal protection available to property
dedicated to it.
28. The subsequent change in the description of the
deity from “Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu” to “Basaveshwara
Devaru, Sarjapura ” from 1989-90 onwards also required closer
examination. The State has specifically pleaded that Thindlu
and Sarjapura are distinct villages situated approximately two
kilometres apart and that separate Basaveshwara temples exist
at both places. In such circumstances, the change in the
description of the deity could not have been accepted as a
mere clerical variation without examining the basis on which
the change was effected.
29. The relevant question was whether the property
originally recorded in the name of Basavanna
Devaru/Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu, had lawfully become
2
(1967) 2 SCR 618.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
the property of the Trust at Sarjapura. The mere subsequent
description of the deity as being at Sarjapura does not, without
supporting material, establish the Trust’s title to the land at
Thindlu.
30. The endorsements dated 08.06.2006 issued by the
Tahsildar and 11.09.2009 issued by the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department, relied upon by the
petitioner-Society, do not conclude the issue. Those
endorsements are stated to indicate that the temple or Trust
was not under the administrative jurisdiction of the Muzrai
Department or was not a notified institution under the relevant
enactment. It is, however, necessary to distinguish the
administrative status of a temple from the ownership of the
land attached to it.
31. The fact that a temple is not under the control or
supervision of the Muzrai Department does not establish that
the land belongs to a private Trust. Equally, the fact that an
institution is described as a private temple or private Trust does
not, by itself, establish that every property claimed by it
belongs to that institution. The title to Sy.No.128/1 has to be
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
traced to its source and established independently. The
endorsements relied upon by the petitioner-Society do not
answer the specific objection of the State founded upon the
historical revenue records.
32. The report dated 11.02.2010 and the Government
permission dated 08.04.2010 granted under Section 109 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, have to be examined in this
background. The permission granted to the petitioner-Society
to accept the proposed gift cannot be treated as an
adjudication of the Trust’s title over the Subject Land. Such
permission does not confer upon the Trust a right which it did
not possess, nor does it operate as a declaration that the
property was free from any pre-existing dedication or claim of
the deity.
33. The registered Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010 and the
rectification deed dated 07.07.2010 may evidence the
transaction between the Trust and the petitioner-Society;
however, registration of the document cannot cure a defect in
the title of the Trust itself. The essential question remains
whether the Trust had acquired the property from the deity or
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
from any other person legally competent to convey it. Unless
that foundational requirement is established, the petitioner-
Society cannot derive a better title merely on the strength of
the registered instrument.
34. The State has specifically contended that the Trust
came into existence only in 1985, whereas the historical
revenue records relied upon by it refer to Basavanna
Devaru/Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu, in respect of the
Subject Land from a much earlier period. The Trust was,
therefore, required to establish the manner in which it acquired
title to the Subject Land and the authority under which it
claimed the right to deal with the Subject Land. If the Subject
Land had been dedicated to the deity, i.e., Basavanna
Devaru/Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu, and there was no
material to establish that the Trust had lawfully acquired the
Subject Land from the deity, then the Trust could not treat the
Subject Land as its own property and gift it to the petitioner-
Society.
35. At this juncture, we may note here that there has
been no convincing material placed before us to persuade us to
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
accept that the Trust had any manner of right, title or interest
over the Subject Land. We may also note that the Hon’ble
3
Supreme Court in S.N. Jagannath Rao v. T. Velliyamma ,
has held that no person can transfer a better right, title or
interest than what he himself has over the property. In this
regard, the maxim nemo dat quod non habet would squarely
apply to the instant case. When the Trust itself did not have
any manner of right, title or interest over the Subject Land, the
Trust could not execute the Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010 and
confer a better right, title or interest to the petitioner-Society.
36. In the present case, the Government permission
dated 08.04.2010 under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act was only a permission to the petitioner-Society to
accept the proposed gift. It cannot be construed as an
adjudication of the Trust’s title or as a statutory authorisation
to alienate the property belonging to a deity. The distinction is
material. The question is not whether the petitioner-Society
was permitted to accept a gift, but whether the Trust was
legally competent to make that gift.
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 447.
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
37. We may note that even if the deity, Basavanna
Devaru/Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu, had transferred the
Subject Land to the Trust, such a transfer could only be made
to advance the interest and benefit of the deity, which has not
been established in the instant case. The aforesaid position
receives further support from the recent judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ramalingam and Others v.
Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary
4
and Others , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
examining the alienation of temple property by a trustee,
reiterated that the administration of property belonging to a
religious institution carries with it a duty of preservation and
not an unrestricted power of disposition.
38. The Court observed that temple property is held for
the deity and is not available for gratuitous disposal by a
person merely because he happens to hold the office of trustee,
however well-intentioned such disposal may be. The trustee or
custodian holds the property in a fiduciary capacity for the deity
and the worshippers for whose benefit the endowment exists.
4
( 2026) SCC OnLine SC 2195.
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
However, in the instant case, there is no convincing material
placed on record to establish that the Subject Land was
transferred from the deity to the Trust.
39. The petitioner-Society has also relied upon the
single-site approval dated 23.09.2011 issued by the Anekal
Planning Authority and the expenditure said to have been
incurred towards construction of an educational institution. The
claim that substantial amounts, stated to be more than Rs.13
Crore, were invested in the project is a matter which may be
relevant to the consequences of the dispute. However,
expenditure incurred on the property or the public purpose for
which it is proposed to be used cannot, in law, substitute proof
of title. A public purpose, however beneficial, cannot by itself
validate a transaction which the applicable law does not permit.
The interest of the petitioner-Society and the expenditure
incurred by it cannot take precedence without first determining
the character of the land and the authority of the person who
purported to convey it.
40. The State has also relied upon the letter dated
09.04.2013 issued by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
and Charitable Endowments, which, according to the statement
of objections, described Sy.No.128/1 at Thindlu as Inam land.
It has further referred to the Khethawar Register, the Index of
Lands and the Record of Rights in support of its contention that
the property was not owned by the Trust. The absence of an
entry in the Quit Rent Register, as pointed out by the State, is
also a circumstance which requires consideration along with the
other records.
41. It would not be appropriate to determine the
character of the land solely on the basis of one endorsement or
one revenue entry. The historical records have to be read
cumulatively to ascertain the nature of the original grant, the
person or deity in whose favour the property stood, and
whether any subsequent lawful transfer or vesting had taken
place. The learned Single Judge was required to address these
specific objections before holding that the petitioner-Society
was entitled to the relief sought.
42. It is also necessary to distinguish the question of
title from the question of conversion. The Deputy
Commissioner’s order dated 26.04.2011 under Section 95 of
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, permitting conversion
of the land for non-agricultural use, does not, by itself,
establish ownership in favour of the petitioner-Society.
Conversion is concerned with the permitted use of the land and
cannot be treated as a declaration of title.
43. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge to
enter the name of the petitioner-Society in the revenue records
also requires reconsideration. Where the very title of the donor-
Trust is seriously disputed and the historical records disclose
the name of the deity in the ownership column, mutation in
favour of the Society could not have been directed merely on
the basis of the Gift Deed and the permission to accept the gift.
Revenue entries are not instruments of title, and a direction to
mutate the petitioner-Society’s name cannot resolve the
underlying dispute concerning ownership of the land. The
learned Single Judge, without adequately examining the
historical entries, the nature of the endowment and the Trust’s
authority to execute the Gift Deed, proceeded to grant relief to
the petitioner-Society.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
44. On an overall consideration of the material placed
on record, we find that the specific objections raised by the
State, particularly those relating to the Khethawar Register, the
old RTC entries, the change in the name of the deity from
Basaveshwara Devaru, Thindlu, came to be changed as
Basaveshwara Devaru, Sarjapura, warranted a detailed
consideration. The legal character of the property and the
Trust’s authority to convey it were foundational questions. The
endorsements relating to the non-applicability of the Muzrai
Department, the Government permission dated 08.04.2010 and
the registered Gift Deed dated 09.04.2010 did not, individually
or collectively, dispense with the requirement of establishing
the donor’s title.
45. The failure to examine these material aspects has a
direct bearing on the conclusion reached in W.P. No.7966/2014.
The order under appeal, insofar as it concerns the said writ
petition, therefore, cannot be sustained and warrants
interference in this appeal.
46. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:53883-DB
WA No. 1142 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010260722026
the revenue authorities to enter the name of the Society in
respect of Sy.No.128/1 without first examining whether the
Trust had established a lawful title or authority to convey the
property. The Society’s claim could not have been accepted
solely on the strength of the Government permission and the
registered Gift Deed, particularly when the historical revenue
records relied upon by the State disclosed the name of the
deity in the ownership column. The order dated 30.07.2025
passed in W.P.No.7966/2014 warrants our interference and
accordingly, the appeal is liable to be set aside. Hence, the
following;
ORDER
(i) In the result, the writ appeal is allowed .
(ii) The order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.7966/2014 (KLR-RES) is set aside .
Pending I.A. stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6