A temple cannot claim ownership or ritual-management rights over a cave without supporting evidence.

The petitioner-temple sought a declaration under Section 25-B(6)(i)–(ii) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, that Supaarshva Guhe and Naga Theertha, situated on land in Sy. Nos. 92/1 and 92/3, were its properties.

It asserted that the temple maintained the cave and deity and performed poojas and customary ceremonies there.

The Deputy Commissioner rejected the petition, finding that the temple had not established its management or administration of the cave and deity.

The temple challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and also complained that respondents 2 and 3 were collecting offerings from devotees.

1. Whether the petitioner-temple established a right to have the cave and Naga Theertha declared its properties, warranting interference with the Deputy Commissioner’s order.

2. Whether the allegation that respondents 2 and 3 collected donations or offerings could be addressed in these proceedings, or whether the petitioner could pursue relief under Section 69-B of the Act.

3. Whether the availability of an appeal under Section 25-B(7) of the Act was an alternative remedy relevant to the writ petition.

Section 25-B(7) of the Act provides an appellate remedy before the Endowment Commissioner against an order under Section 25-B, and the Court accepted that an alternative remedy was available.

Section 69-B(1) bars individuals, organisations, or committees from collecting seva funds or donations for any purpose in the name of a notified or declared institution without the prescribed authority’s sanction.

Under Section 69-B(2), the prescribed authority may inquire into a complaint under Section 50 and make appropriate orders concerning unauthorised collections, including confiscation and crediting of the funds to the institution’s account.

A claim that property or a deity is managed by a temple must be supported by material establishing the asserted right; the petitioner’s evidence was insufficient in this case.

The petitioner produced no documents establishing its right to manage the cave or perform its poojas and rituals.

The Court also noted that the temple and cave were approximately two kilometres apart and held that the temple’s claim to management and ownership was not established; accordingly, there was no basis to interfere with the Deputy Commissioner’s finding.

The Court treated the alleged collection of offerings as a distinct matter: Section 69-B would apply if respondents 2 and 3 collected donations in the name of the petitioner-temple, but the Deputy Commissioner had not examined that complaint in the impugned proceedings.

The petitioner was therefore left to pursue the statutory process under that provision.

Although the Court accepted that an appeal under Section 25-B(7) was available, it also considered the merits of the challenge.

The Court upheld the rejection of the temple’s claim concerning the cave and Naga Theertha, finding no established right or error in the Deputy Commissioner’s decision.

It reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 69-B regarding any collection of seva funds or contributions made by respondents 2 and 3 in the name of the temple; the Deputy Commissioner was directed to examine any such petition in accordance with that provision.