Bengaluru: Property dedicated to a deity is not the trustee’s personal estate and cannot be disposed of at the pleasure of anyone administering the temple, Karnataka high court ruled recently while allowing an appeal by the state govt.A division bench of Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan set aside a single-bench order favouring Sri Jagadguru Renukacharya Education Society in a dispute over 2 acres and 7 guntas at Thindlu Village, Sarjapura hobli, Anekal taluk.The society had claimed that Sri Jagathjyothi Basaveswara Temple Trust, Sarjapura, executed a gift deed in its favour on April 9, 2010, after obtaining permission from govt. The land was subsequently converted for non-agricultural use, and permission to establish an educational institution was granted in 2011.Revenue authorities revoked the permission on Jan 4, 2014, saying the property was govt Inam land. The local tahsildar also cancelled the conversion order. On July 30, 2025, the single bench quashed both decisions.The revenue department appealed, contending that historical records showed the property was originally registered in the name of “Basaveshwara Devaru”, Thindlu, with some people cultivating it. From 1989-90 onwards, the name was changed to Basaveshwara Devaru, Sarjapura, although the temples at Thindlu and Sarjapura were about 2km apart. The department argued that subsequent revenue entries and documents produced by the society did not establish the trust’s ownership or lawful possession.The division bench said the society’s claim could not be accepted solely on the basis of govt permission and the registered gift deed, particularly when historical revenue records named the deity in the ownership column. It said the deity was the owner and the trustee merely a custodian responsible for protecting the property for the deity and worshippers.“What is offered to God cannot become the personal bounty of the person who receives it in trust. 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,” the bench observed.
