A Karnataka High Court Bench of Dr. Justice HB Prabhakara Sastry has observed that the ownership and management of a temple built on government kharab land cannot be claimed by private persons, especially when it is dedicated to the public.

In that context, reliance was placed on the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. V. Varadarajait and it was said that, "with respect to reserved kharab land, no individual can claim any right as the said kharab land is reserved for public purpose. According to Ex.D.1, Muneshwaraswamy Temple with stone Mantapa is situated on one gunta of reserved kharab land and the Temple and stone Mantapa are left for public use. Hence, according to V. Varadaraja's case (supra), no individual, including AWHO or the plaintiffs can claim any right thereupon."

Counsel BV Nidhishreee appeared for the appellants, while Counsel T Seshagiri Rao appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the dispute surrounds property which encompasses both land and a temple structure. The property is classified as 'A' kharab and 'B' land under the Karnataka Land Rules Rules and spans approximately 5 acres and 36 guntas in size. Within this property, significant structures include the Muneshwaraswamy Temple and a stone Mantapa. Importantly, these structures have not undergone an evaluation for compensation, and they remain accessible for public use.

The plaintiffs asserted ownership and exclusive management rights over this property. Their conflict arose from the alleged interference by defendant No.3, along with his followers, who entered the Sena Vihar Complex situated near the property in 2011. Their actions were suspected of having ulterior motives, particularly encroaching on areas claimed by the first plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the local police in August 2011.

Despite the initial complaint, defendant No.3 continued to be involved in what the plaintiffs alleged as interference in the administration of the Muneshwaraswamy Temple. Defendant No.3 claimed to have established a Temple Association named Sri. Bhandarappa Bhaktadigala Sangha, which was designated as defendant No.1 in this case. In their correspondence with the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 articulated its intent to rejuvenate and reconstruct the Muneshwaraswamy Temple.

The plaintiffs submitted additional complaints to the police. They also sent a formal notice to defendant No.3 in September 2011. The notice demanded that defendant No.3 refrain from interfering with the administration of the temple.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs contended that defendant No.3 and his supporters deliberately created a law and order altercation in February 2012 by visiting the temple to offer prayers. This development prompted another complaint to be lodged by the plaintiffs with the police.

Throughout these legal proceedings, the plaintiffs consistently maintained their claim of ownership over the suit schedule property. Importantly, they clarified that they did not object to individuals visiting the temple for worship. Their primary concern revolved around the potential consequences of the temple's demolition and reconstruction, which they believed could negatively impact the property's aesthetics and the neighboring apartment 'A' block within the Sena Vihar Complex.

The High Court observed that even if it was taken for arguments sake that the plaintiffs paid the land value of Rs. 575/- to the Tahasildar through BDA, still, the value is only towards the lands but not to the super structure in the form of Temple and stone Mantapa existing on the said land. In light of the same, the Court relied on a catena of judgments to hold that, "any act of any adult person including the defendants can be confined and limited only in visiting the Temple, offering the prayer and worshipping the deity since the Temple is meant for public use and nothing beyond the same."

Further, the Court observed that it was clearly established that the intention of the defendants was not just worshiping the deity in Muneshwaraswamy Temple in the suit schedule property, but, remodeling, renovating and rejuvenating, the said Temple structure and to a put-up a new construction in the place of the old one. In that context, the Court said that, "This clearly go to show that apart from their right to worship the deity, since the Temple is shown as left for public use, have also attempted to take control of the Temple upon its management, maintenance and administration. This act of the defendants is not a mere act of worshipping the deity and offering the prayer as a devotee of Lord Muneshwara, but, something beyond the same and can be called an act towards taking the reins of the Temple including its management, administration and maintenance."

Consequently, the Court observed that it was required that the defendants be restrained from taking reins of the Temple, upon its management, maintenance and administration not in the manner and process known to Law. In that context, it was also said that, "Since the defendants have not established that their act of approaching the plaintiffs and entering the Temple premises for the purpose and with an intention to renovate, remodeling and rejuvenating it and for the said purpose, the removal of the existing structure and putting up a new structure was in accordance with law and in a manner known to law, they are required to be restrained from proceeding in carrying out any such works or acts, except visiting the Temple and as a devotee of Lord Muneshwara to offer prayers and worshipping the God."

Subsequently, the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled for the relief of partial injunction against the defendants, for their excesses which was beyond their right to worship the deity and offer prayer as a devotee and for their alleged attempt to take the reins of the Temple in the guise of renovation and rejuvenation.

In light of the same, the Court decreed that, "The defendants, their members, agents, servants, henchmen and any other person claiming under them are restrained from altering, remodeling, renovating, rejuvenating or doing any acts affecting or altering or damaging the existing structure of the Temple and stone mantapa in the suit schedule property, except in accordance with law and in a manner known to law. However, this order would not come in the way of the defendants, their members, agent, servants, henchmen, and any other person claiming under them visiting the Muneshwaraswamy Temple and stone Mantapa in the suit schedule property as devotees and offering their prayer and worshipping the deity without causing any disturbance to the peace and tranquility of the surrounding and to the residents in the locality."

Cause Title: Sena Vihar Owners Welfare Association & Anr. vs Sri. Bandarappa Bhakthadigala Sangha & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice HB Prabhakara SastryGovernment Kharab LandTemple Land

Verdictum News Desk