Man claims govt took over different temple; HC disagrees

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A resident of Hassan approached the High Cour t claiming that the Government had taken over a temple built by his ancestors and he had the right to administer the affairs of the temple.

His contention was that the Government had notified a different temple but taken over another. However, the High Court found that the fact was something else.

Somegowda, a resident of Soppinahalli, Hassan filed an appeal before the High Court which was heard by the division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal.

Somegowda’s claim is that the Sri Puradamma Temple situated at survey number 50 of Beekanahalli village was taken over by the State Government under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act.

However the Governemnt had in fact notified to take over the Sri Chowdeshwari Temple situated at survey number 37. So a wrong temple was taken over and not the one notified.

He approached the Assistant Commissioner on this issue in 2015 but his application was rejected. He then approached the HC and the petition was heard by a single judge bench.

The single judge bench rejected his contention in 2022 after which he filed an appeal before the division bench.

It was the claim of the appellant that his forefathers had constructed the said "Sri. Purdamma Temple" and that he had right to administer the affairs of the said temple.

'The same temple' The counsel for the State contended that “Sri Chowdeshwari Temple and Sri Puradamma Temple are one and the same and situated survey number 50.”

Revenue records from 1974-75 to 2014-15 were presented which showed the existence of Sri Chowdeshwari Devaru.

The Government also contended that in survey number 37 of the same village there was another temple called the Sri Hallada Rameshwara Devaru “which is different and distinct from the aforesaid temple.”

The HC in its judgement said that Somegowda has failed to prove his case. “Though the appellant claims that the aforesaid two temples are situated in different lands, no material evidence is produced either before the respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner or before learned Single Judge.

On the contrary, the revenue records produced by the respondents-State specifically establish the fact that "Sri.Chowdeshwari Devaru" temple is situated in land bearing Sy.No.50 and "Sri. Hallada Rameshwara Devaru" temple is situated in land bearing Sy.No.37,” it said.

Dismissing the appeal, the HC said, “In that view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity or illegality of the order passed by the lear ned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. No grounds are made out warranting interference. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed." (WA 823/2022)