<p>The Sri Ranganathaswami temple in Srirangapatna has become richer by thousands of crores, as recent findings have concluded that it owns 880 acres of land in five villages of Bengaluru South taluk. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Situated on the banks of River Cauvery in Mandya district, the temple gave Srirangapatna town its name and is a popular pilgrimage centre. The temple’s fortunes soared after a Bengalurean named Mahendra Javaraiah suggested in 2015 that it owns land worth Rs 1,500 crore in Bengaluru. Surprisingly, even the Muzrai Department was unaware of the land owned by the temple until then. Major portions of the land, however, have been encroached upon. <br /><br />The department found the temple indeed owns 880 acres and 37 guntas of land in five villages in Tavarakere hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. The land was donated to it through a Trust Deed by Dwarakabai, a resident of Malleswaram, Bengaluru, in 1937. <br /><br />It is said that 285 acres and 29 guntas at Cholanayakanahalli, 89 acres 36 guntas at Doddamaranahalli, 265 acres six guntas at Peddanapalya, 95 acres at Byalalu, and 145 acres six guntas at Kurubarahalli (Kadukarenahalli), belong to the temple.<br /><br />It was also found that vast tracts of land were transferred to others around 40 years ago and buildings have come up on them. The RTCs of a few survey numbers have been procured online. While some are in the name of others, some remain in the temple’s name. Ranganathaswami Temple Executive Officer Dhanalakshmi has written to the Special Deputy Commissioner in Bengaluru, requesting that khatha should not be issued to the land in survey numbers 47, 51, 53, 54 at Byalalu village; 56 to 63 in Cholanayakanahalli; 28 to 32 in Doddamaranahalli; 7 to 11 in Peddanapalya, and 117, 154 to 157, and 161 to 164 in Kurubarahalli. Mandya Deputy Commissioner Dr Ajay Nagabushan M N wrote to his Bengaluru Urban counterpart, citing irregularities in the transfer of land donated to the temple. He told Deccan Herald the temple land was being identified and would be fenced thereafter. <br /><br /> </p>
<p>The Sri Ranganathaswami temple in Srirangapatna has become richer by thousands of crores, as recent findings have concluded that it owns 880 acres of land in five villages of Bengaluru South taluk. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Situated on the banks of River Cauvery in Mandya district, the temple gave Srirangapatna town its name and is a popular pilgrimage centre. The temple’s fortunes soared after a Bengalurean named Mahendra Javaraiah suggested in 2015 that it owns land worth Rs 1,500 crore in Bengaluru. Surprisingly, even the Muzrai Department was unaware of the land owned by the temple until then. Major portions of the land, however, have been encroached upon. <br /><br />The department found the temple indeed owns 880 acres and 37 guntas of land in five villages in Tavarakere hobli, Bengaluru South taluk. The land was donated to it through a Trust Deed by Dwarakabai, a resident of Malleswaram, Bengaluru, in 1937. <br /><br />It is said that 285 acres and 29 guntas at Cholanayakanahalli, 89 acres 36 guntas at Doddamaranahalli, 265 acres six guntas at Peddanapalya, 95 acres at Byalalu, and 145 acres six guntas at Kurubarahalli (Kadukarenahalli), belong to the temple.<br /><br />It was also found that vast tracts of land were transferred to others around 40 years ago and buildings have come up on them. The RTCs of a few survey numbers have been procured online. While some are in the name of others, some remain in the temple’s name. Ranganathaswami Temple Executive Officer Dhanalakshmi has written to the Special Deputy Commissioner in Bengaluru, requesting that khatha should not be issued to the land in survey numbers 47, 51, 53, 54 at Byalalu village; 56 to 63 in Cholanayakanahalli; 28 to 32 in Doddamaranahalli; 7 to 11 in Peddanapalya, and 117, 154 to 157, and 161 to 164 in Kurubarahalli. Mandya Deputy Commissioner Dr Ajay Nagabushan M N wrote to his Bengaluru Urban counterpart, citing irregularities in the transfer of land donated to the temple. He told Deccan Herald the temple land was being identified and would be fenced thereafter. <br /><br /> </p>
