ORDER
Chidananda Ullal, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Dharmadarshis of Sri Hanumantha Devaru temple situated at Jalahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, to quash the order dt. 26.7.82 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore, (North) Taluk granting occupancy right in part in respect of three different extents of lands, 24 guntas to respondent No. 1, 18 guntas to respondent No. 2 and 24 guntas to respondent No. 3 (in all 1 acre 26 guntas) out of Sy.No. 73, Copy at Anhexure ‘A’ to Writ Petition and further to quash the order dated 22.8.89 passed by the respondent No. 5 – District Land Reforms Appellants Authority, Bangalore Dist., whereby the said Appellate Authority while allowing the deemed appeal of the respondents No. 1 to 3 granted occupancy right to them in respect of the entire extents as claimed by respondents No. 1 to 3 by setting aside the order dt. 17.7.86 of the Land Tribunal, copy as at Annexure ‘B’ to Writ Petition.
2. I heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Giridhar, Sri K.S. Suman appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri S.S. Guttal appearing for the respondents No. 4 to 8.
3. Before proceeding further, I feel it proper to advert to the facts of the case; in brief the same are as hereunder:
That the respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed form No. 1 before the respondent No. 6 – Land Tribunal. Bangalore North Taluk claiming occupancy right in respect of lands to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas, 1 acre 26 guntas and 2 acres 20 guntas respectively and on enquiry, the Land Tribunal had partially rejected their claims as their claim was considered only by grant of 24 guntas each to respondent No.
1 and respondent No. 3 and 18 guntas to respondent No. 2 in respect of panchasala gutta land belonging to the deity. The respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No. 42194 and 42195/82 before this Court to challenge the said order rejecting part of their respective claims. That the said Writ Petitions were transferred to the respondent No. 5 – Land Reforms Appellate Authority (since abolished) for treating the same as deemed appeals and further to pass considered orders thereon. That the said appellate Authority registered the said Writ Petitions as a single Appeal in No. LRM. 543/86 and the Appellate Authority after hearing the parties passed the impugned order granding the occupancy right in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas each to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 and 1 acre 20 guntas to respondent No. 2 as applied for by them individually. Now, the said order passed by the LRAA granting occupancy right to them is under challenge in the hands of the Dharmadarshis of the temple.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order came to be passed as against the deity without they being heard in the matter. According to them, they being the Dharmadarshis were entrusted with the charge of managing the affairs of the Hanumantha Devaru Temple, they would have been made necessary party to the claim before the Land Tribunal and also the appeal before the LRAA, To demonstrate before this Court that the petitioners are entitled to for the notice, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also cited before me reported decision of this Court in .
5. The other point that was argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the panchasala gutta is not a lease within the meaning of the Land Reforms Act, and neither the Land Tribunal nor the LRAA for that matter gets jurisdiction for grant of occupancy right to the claimants as that of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and according to Sri Giridhar the grant of occupancy right therefore is without jurisdiction. Under the said circumstances, it is very much available for the petitioners to challenge both the orders passed by the Land Tribunal and the orders passed by the LRAA, copy whereof are produced at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively to the, Writ Petition before this Court, no matter that they were not the parties before the Land Tribunal as well as before the LRAA, as long as they are aggrieved thereof by the said orders. It is also his submission that even if there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners herein to file a revision petition under Section 121A of the Land Reforms Act, that would not come on their way in the matter of challenge of the same before this Court by way of Writ Petition. Sri Giridhar had also cited before me the following five decisions in support of his argument:
SHRl KUDLI SRINGERl MAHA SAMSTHANAM vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
S. SUMITRA vs. STATE,
ILR 1996 Kar p.249
ILR 1992 Kar. p.3303
An unreported common order in W.P.Nos. 9623 to 88 and W.P.No. 4952/88.
While summing up his argument, Sri Giridhar prayed that the impugned orders passed both by the Land Tribunal as well as by the LRAA be quashed and the claim of the respondent No. 1 to 3 be rejected as they do not have any vested right to be registered as occupants under the Land Reforms Act as their claim was based on ‘Panchasala’ gutta of the temple land.
6. Sri Suman Learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3 on the other hand argued that whatever be the merit or demerit of the impugned order under challenge, as long as the petitioners have not shown their locus standi to challenge the impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as by the LRAA, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground alone. While taking me through Section 11 of the Karnataka Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 in the matter of suits on behalf of Muzari institutions, Sri Suman pointedly argued that whenever it is necessary to institute a suit on behalf of any Muzrai institution, the Muzrai Officer may file a suit himself or authorise any two or more Dharmadarshis, nazreens or other persons having interest in such institutions and that admittedly in the instant case, the Dharmadarshis having not been authorised by the Muzrai Officer (who was very much a party to the impugned order), cannot resort to the instant
Writ Petition and therefore, according to him, the instant Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as they were not entrusted with authority or permission to institute the Writ Petition for and on behalf of the Muzrai institution. It is also the argument of Sri Suman that when there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners to file a revision petition to challenge the impugned order as contemplated under Section 121A of the Land Reforms Act, it is totally impermissible in law for the petitioners to institute the instant Writ Petition before this Court, or in other words, his argument is that when the alternative remedy is very much available to the petitioners, the institution of the Writ Petition is untenable in law. In support of his argument, Sri Suman had also cited before me the following decisions:
B.V. Chitti Babu vs. State of Karnataka 1995(5) KLJ p. 374
Ramanna vs. State of Karnataka (Division Bench)
1973(3) KLJ p.29 (Division Bench)
The first decision is under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, Having gone through the same, it does not appear to me that the said case is applicable to the instant case in hand. The other decision reported in 1973(3) KLJ p.29 is also under Karnataka Rent Control Act and does not appear to be applicable to the instant case in hand; however, I find some relevance in the decision, in ILR 1991 KAR 1717 for in the said decision, this Court held that the devotees of a temple are strangers to the claim of the Act and as such, they are not eligible to champion the public cause by resorting to a public interest litigation. In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“A careful analysis of the provisions of the Act will put the matter beyond doubt that the lis is between the Government on the one hand and the various persons, like adim tenants, permanent tenants, other tenants like claimants under Sections 7 or 9 on the other hand. Nowhere in the scheme of the Act, the devotees come in at all. They are utter strangers to the proceedings. They may be ardent devotees, but that does not give them a saved by certain provisions…No doubt in cases where Temple is involved,
the devotees could maintain the action e.g. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act; but disregardful of the above statutory provision no devotee can ever come up. Mere label as a Public Cause Litigation cannot carry them far.”
7. In the light of the above the following points arise for my consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioner are entitled to for maintaining the Writ Petition to challenge the impugned orders as Dharmadrshis of the temple in question?
(ii) Whether the impugned order dated 26.7.82 passed by the respondent No. 6 – Land Tribunal in granting occupancy right in part to the contesting respondents No. 1 to 3 is just and proper and further whether the impugned order dated 22.8.89 passed by the LRAA in Appeal No. LRM.543/86 is just and proper and whether the same are liable to be quashed in the instant Writ Petition?
8. Regarding Point No. 1 : The petitioners have challenged the order passed at the first instance by the Land Tribunal and by the Appellate Authority at the second on the ground that the respondents No. 1 to 3 are not entitled to for grant of occupancy right as long as their case was that they were cultivating the subject lands belonging to the deity under ‘panchasala gutta’. It is no more a bone of contention that persons cultivating the lands under ‘panchasala gutta’ are not entitled to for the grant of occupancy right under the Land Reforms Act. If that is so, the question of entertaining the claim of the respondents No. 1 to 3 for grant of occupancy right based on their contention that they were cultivating the subject lands under panchasala gutta did not arise at all; or in other words to say that the Land Tribunal did not get jurisdiction to entertain their claims under Section 48 of the Land Reforms Act. If such a legal bar was there for the Land Tribunal to grant occupancy right to the respondents No. 1 to 3, it is obvious that the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right to them is totally erroneous and not tenable in law. Hence it appears to me that both the Land Tribunal as well as the LRAA totally misconceived the base of the respondents No. 1 to 3 and it is for that reason the impugned orders came to be passed both by the land Tribunal as well as by the LRAA. Therefore, it is needless to say that both the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Now the point is whether the petitioners as the Dharmadarshis of the deity in question can maintain a Writ Petition before this Court to challenge the same.
9. The Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3, Sri Suman had argued that the petitioners being the Dharmadarshis having not obtained prior authorisation from the jurisdictional Muzrai Officer under Section 11 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927, they would not have resorted to the instant Writ Petition. The said argument advanced by Sri Suman appears to be appealable, but nevertheless, I should not miss the point that the said provision of law is applicable only with regard to resorting to suit. In the instant case in hand, the petitioners have invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India to complain before this Court that the Land Tribunal as well as the LRAA had passed an illegal order to grant occupancy right to the respondents No. 1 to 3 in respect of the subject land belonging to the temple for which they were appointed as the managers thereof by the Muzrai Officer. It is their case that they being the managers were duty bound to safeguard the interest of the deity and therefore the argument of Sri Giridhar is that they have got locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition. Sri Suman has not shown any legal bar for invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court by the Dharmadarshis to challenge the illegal orders passed both by the Land Tribunal as well as by the LRAA.
10. In support of his argument, Sri Giridhar had also cited before me the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court , wherein the learned single Judge of this Court having regard to the provisions of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927, held that a notice should have been given to a Muzai Officer including the Dharmadarshis of the temple in the matter of lease beyond years. That was also a case where the Government lands were leased without regard to the mandatory provisions of the said Act in the matter of leasing of the land belonging to the deity to private persons. I have gone through the said decision, but I do not think the said decision is of assistance to the petitioners herein to say that the Dharmadarshis are entitled to for a notice in the matter of claim of tenancy by the petitioners who claim to be cultivating the lands of the deity under panchasala gutta.
11. The Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents 1 to 3 had tried his best to impress upon me that under the scheme of the Act, the rights and duties of the Dharmadarshis are well set out and under the said authorities vested in them, resorting to suit for and on behalf of the deity is only with the authorisation of the Muzrai Officer and not otherwise. No doubt such a provision is there as far as the filing of the suit is concerned, but is cannot be said that they cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the peculiar circumstances the Dharmadarshis are placed when according to them, the Land Tribunal and the LRAA had totally erred in law in granding occupancy right to the respondents No. 1 to 3 when their case before the Land Tribunal was cultivation by them under ‘panchasala gutta’.
12. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner had also cited before me the Division Bench ruling of this Court . In the said case, as we see, the Writ Petition was filed by the devotees for and on behalf of the deity, whereas in the case in hand, the Writ Petition is by the Dharmadarshis who were appointed under the statute in the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act. 1927 to manage the affairs of the temple by the jurisdictional Thasildar. That being so, status of the devotees are totally different from the Dharmadarshis appointed by the Authorities. Hence, in my considered view, the said decision is having no application to the instant case in hand.
13. I have given anxious thought to the argument advanced by Sri Suman before me with regard to the authority to institute the instant Writ Petition before this Court. In my considered view, when the Dharmadarshis are entrusted with the authority to manage the affairs of the deity by the Muzrai Officer, it cannot be said that they cannot institute a Writ Petition to protect their institution they are supposed to manage. If we analyse the whole situation, the Dharmadarshis have filed the Writ Petition when the Land Tribunal had granted the occupancy right in part to the respondents No. 1 to 3 at the first instance and further when the LRAA had set aside the partial grant and further granted the occupancy right in respect of the extents as they claimed in Form No. 7, no matter that the persons as that of the respondents NO.1 to 3 were cultivating the lands under ‘panchasala gutta’ and as such were not entitled in law for grant of occupancy right under Section 48 of the Land Reforms Act. It therefore appears to me that when the Land Tribunal as well as the LRAA did not get jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the respondents No. 1 to 3 for grant of occupancy right to them when their case is admittedly a cultivation under ‘panchasala gutta’, it is very much available to the Dharmadarshis to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to complain the illegality committed by both the said Authorities. In that view of the matter, I hold that the petitioners being the Dharmadarshis of the temple duly appointed by the Muzrai Officer to manage the affairs of the Temple are entitled to maintain the Writ Petition before this Court to challenge both the impugend orders firstly passed by the Land Tribunal and secondly passed by the Appellant Authority in granting the occupancy right illegality.
14. Regarding Point No. 2 : In view of the undisputed fact that the respondents No. 1 to 3 being the cultivators of the subject land under panchasala gutta, in my considered view, the Land Tribunal was not justified in granting of occupancy right in part to the respondents No. 1 to 3 in passing the order dated 26.7.82 in case No. INA.220/79-80 copy as at Annexure ‘A’ to Writ Petition and further that the Appellate Authority is further not justified in granting the occupancy right in respect of the entire extents of land as claimed by them in form No. 7 in passing the impugned order in their appeal, copy at Annexure ‘B’.
15. In that view of the matter, it appears to me that the said impugned orders passed by the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority, copies as at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively to Writ Petition are liable to be quashed and accordingly hereby quashed. Such a course is necessary for this Court to opt for the reason that the respondents No. 1 to 3 are not entitled to in law for grant of occupancy right under Section 48 of the Land Reforms Act and that both the Land Tribunal as well as the LRAA had flattered in the matter of grant of occupancy right to them.
16. The Writ Petition therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed.