The court established that the condition of cultivation for a period of three years under Sec. 6a applied to both archaks/poojaris and other temple servants, ensuring consistency with the legislative intent and other provisions of the Act.

( 1 ) IN these Writ Appeals, the following question of law arises for consideration:"whether under Sec. 6a of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams abolition Act of 1955 ('the Act' for short), an Archak is entitled to occupancy rights even if he was not cultivating the lands belonging to a religious institution for a period of three years ?"

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow :- i) The Act provided for the abolition of Religious and Charitable Inams in the area of former State of Mysore. Section 3 of the Act provided that, with effect on and from the date of vesting, all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar in all communal lands, cultivated land's etc. , shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances. Section 4 provided that, Kadim tenants cultivating the erstwhile inam lands, shall be entitled to be registered as occupants. Section 3 provided for registering the permanent tenant of erstwhile inam lands as occupants of the lands under their cultivation. Section 6 of the Act provided that every tenant of the inamdar other than a kadim tenant or a permanent tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, be entitled to be continued as a tenant under the government in respect of the land of which he was a tenant under the inamdar immediately before the date of vesting. It however, added that the said provision would not apply to a person who was a poojari or Archak or the holder of similar office and enjoying the benefits of any erstwhile inam land without paying rent. ii) The Act was amended by the mysore Inam Abolition Laws (Amendment) act, 1973. By this Act, a special provision was made in favour of protected tenants to the effect that every protected tenant was also entitled to occupancy rights of the land of which he was cultivating. Protected tenant is defined as a person who has been cultivating the land for 12 years prior to the date of vesting. By this amendment, proviso to Section 6, which cieated the disability for Archak/poojari to continue as tenants was removed. Section 6a was added. It reads :"6a. Pujari, Archak, etc. , to be registered as occupant on certain conditions.- (1) Where the inamdar b an institution of teligious worship, a person- (i) rendering religious service in or maintaining the institution as a pujari, archak or the holder of a similar office by whatever name called ; or ii) rendering any service in such institution and personally cultivating for a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the date of vesting by contributing his own physical labour or that of the members of his family and enjoying the benefits of any land comprised in the inam of such institution without paying rent as such in money or kind to that institution in respect of such land, shall with effect from and on the date of vesting and subject to the provisions of section 27a be entitled to be registered as an occupant of such land. "

( 3 ) 3 acres and guntas of land in survey No. 34 of Maragur village, channarayapatna Taluk, was an inam land belonging to a religious institution. The second respondent was an archak in the temple. The appellant was a tenant actually cultivating the entire extent of 3 acres and 25 guntas for more than 12 years. He had made an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams claiming occupancy rights for the said land on the ground that he was a protected tenant. Respondent No. 2 made an application claiming occupancy rights in respect of only 1 acre of land out of the aforesaid 3 acres end 25 guntas on the ground that he was an archak in the temple. (iii) The application of the appellant and of the second respondent were considered by the Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Hassan District. By his order dated 16-3-1 976-Exhibit 'o', he granted occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of land of 3 acres and 25 guntas in favour of the appellant. He rejected