The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Act did not provide a place for devotees and that they could not invoke Article 226, even in the guise of public cause litigation.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the Judgment of our learned Brother Judge Justice swami, rendered in Writ Petition No. 15249 of 1987, dated 2nd of November, 1988.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows.- the lands forming the subject matter of this writ appeal bear Survey Nos. 174 and 320 of tyloor village. They measure 1 acre 10 guntas and 2 acres 08 guntas respectively. These are inam lands covered by the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1955. Originally it was known as Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act of 1955. This will be referred to as the 'act'.

( 3 ) CONSEQUENT to a notification issued under Section 3 of the said Act, the inam came to be abolished. The appellant herein made an application for registering him as a tenant under the provisions of the Act. Similarly, the Tahsildar who is the Muzrai Officer in-charge of the temple also filed an application for registering the lands in the name of the deity. The Archak of the deity also made an application for registering him as an occupant. The Tribunal by its order dated 25th June, 1982 granted the occupancy rights in favour of the appellant, in respect of the lands in question. Accordingly, it rejected the applications filed by the Archak and the Tahsildar. While the matter stood thus, the devotees of the deity Sri Anjaneyaswamy, Tyloor, Maddur taluk, preferred the writ petition after 5 1/2 years, stating that no notice had been issued to the Tahsildar, nor again was there any public notice issued. Where therefore such a curious procedure was adopted, the order was bad in law and is consequently liable to be set aside. The delay of 5 1/2 years in approaching this Court should not be weighed against the writ petitioners. Though the appellant opposed this stand stating, if notice has not been issued to the tahsildar, it was for the Tahsildar to make out a grievance and not for the so called devotees to take up cudgels on behalf of the Tahsildar, the learned Judge ultimately held the order was bad in law as having been passed without notice to the tahsildar and accordingly he remitted the matter to the Tribunal. Thus, the writ appeal.

( 4 ) IT is urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned Judge has erred gravely in coming to this conclusion. In the scheme of the Act, the devotees have no place. If really an order was passed without notice to the Tahsildar, he having filed an application for registering the lands in the name of the deity, he should have been the first person to come to this Court and then object to the order. He had not chosen to do so, nor again the Archak who made an application had challenged the order. The so called devotees, who have no sublime of right have come up here and then contended that notice has not been issued to the Tahsildar. Therefore, the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside.

( 5 ) IN opposition to this, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5, who were the petitioners in the writ petition, urged that the scope of public cause litigation is such that where an order has been passed without notice to the person who ultimately entitled to that notice, that order cannot remain. It has to be set aside in the manner known to law. Merely because the Tahsildar had not chosen to challenge the order, it does not mean it becomes conclusive, more so when there Was no notice. No doubt the Tahsildar could have challenged the order. However, it does not preclude these respondents to challenge the order as the public cause litigation. As a matter of fact, the question of delay was also considered by the learned Judge and he has come to the right conclusion that the delay should not matter, since they were espousing a public cause. Looked at from this point of view, no case is made out for interference.

( 6 ) WE will now proceed to consider these submissions in seriatim. Before we do so, it is necessary to have a legal back-ground.