Karnataka HC Sets Aside Order Directing Revenue Entry For Education Society On Land Recorded In Deity’s Name, Citing Unproven Trust Title

The dispute concerned 2 acres 7 guntas in Sy. No. 128/1, Thindlu Village.

The Society claimed the Sri Jagathjyothi Basaveswara Temple Trust had gifted the land to it under a registered deed dated 9 April 2010, after the State permitted the Society to accept the gift under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

The Single Judge allowed its petition and directed that its name be entered in the revenue records.

The State appealed.

The Court applied the principle that a Hindu deity is a juristic person and that property dedicated to it belongs to the deity; a priest or trustee’s management role does not itself confer ownership (*State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti*, (2021) 10 SCC 222; *Bishwanath v. Shri Thakur Radha Ballabhji*, (1967) 2 SCR 618).

It also applied the *nemo dat quod non habet* principle: a transferor cannot convey a better title than it possesses (*S.N. Jagannath Rao v. T. Velliyamma*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 447).

A trustee’s authority over temple property is fiduciary and is not an unrestricted power of disposition (*K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu*, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2195).

Permission to accept a gift under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act does not adjudicate the donor’s title; conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act concerns permitted use, not ownership; and registration of a gift deed does not cure a defect in the donor’s title.

Revenue entries are not instruments of title.

The historical records raised a substantial question as to whether the land was associated with the deity at Thindlu, and whether the later change in the recorded deity’s description to Basaveshwara Devaru, Sarjapura, established any link to the Trust.

The Court held that the Single Judge had not adequately examined those records or determined how the Trust acquired title and authority to gift the land.

The State’s objections could not be answered merely by the Society’s Government permission to accept the gift, the registered deed, the conversion order, or the Society’s proposed educational use; none established the Trust’s title.

Nor could mutation resolve the underlying ownership dispute.

The Court therefore found the Single Judge’s direction to enter the Society’s name in the revenue records unsustainable on the record considered.

It allowed the writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 30 July 2025 in W.P. No. 7966/2014.

The judgment did not itself finally determine title to the land or direct a specific further proceeding; it held that the Society’s claim and the Trust’s authority to convey required proper examination before mutation could be ordered.