The main legal principle established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of de facto court to prevent the invalidation of orders solely based on the unconstitutionality of the amendment that empowered the Land Tribunal.

( 1 ) THE short but important question of law that falls for consideration in this case is whether Orders passed by the Land tribunal under Section 9 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) inams Abolition Act, 1955 can be saved on the doctrine of de-facto court-the enactment by which the Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matters having been declared ultra vires of the Constitution. The question arises in the following backdrop;

( 2 ) AN area measuring 8 acres 27 guntas situated in Village chikkabanavara was endowed as a religious inam in favour of channarayaswamy temple being managed by the Muzarai department. After the abolition of the Inams under what is known as Mysore [religious and Charitable] Inams Abolition Act, 1955, the petitioner Sri Ramaiah and his three brothers who happen to be the Archaks of the temple applied under Section 6 of the Act for grant of occupancy rights qua the land in question in their favour. Respondent No. 4 also approached the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights as the protected tenant in cultivating possession of the disputed piece of land. The Land Tribunal after holding an enquiry passed an Order by which it declared respondent No. 4 to be ineligible to claim any right qua the disputed land since he was already holding an area exceeding 10 acres. By the same order, the Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the view taken by the Tribunal, Respondent no. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 1976/1982 in this Court. The said petition was allowed and the matter remanded back to the land tribunal for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal pursuant to the said Order recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and once again rejected the claim made by respondent No. 4. By its order dated, 9. 4. 1987 the Tribunal held that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for the grant of occupancy rights as Section 27a of the act was a bar to any such grant. It found that the respondent was holding more than 10 acres of land and that eksal and panchasal guttedars could not be recognised as tenants eligible for conferment of rights under the Act. Aggrieved by the said Order, Respondent no. 4 appealed to the Appellate Authority under the Act. The appellate Authority permitted the parties to adduce additional evidence and eventually allowed the appeal holding that respondent no. 4 was a protected tenant of the land in dispute and that the provisions of Section 27a of the Act were not applicable to such tenants as was clarified by a circular issued by the Government on the subject. The Appellate Authority accordingly set aside the Order passed by the land tribunal, rejected the claim made by the petitioners for grant of occupancy rights in their favour and granted the said rights in favour of respondent No. 4.

( 4 ) THE order passed by the Appellate Authority was assailed by the petitioners in a Revision Petition which came up for hearing before Prasad Rao, J. , who dismissed the same by an Order dated 26. 6. 2000. The said Order was subsequently recalled by the learned single Judge in terms of an Order dated 17. 7. 2000. While doing so, the learned Single Judge noticed a conflict between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in ESWARAPPA vs THE STATE of KARNATAKA AND OTHERS and WEST COAST PAPER MILLS ltd. , vs INDIRA RAO. In Eshwarappas case supra one of the questions that arose for consideration was whether the decision rendered by the land tribunal under Section 9 of the Mysore [religious and Charitable] Inams Abolition Act, 1955 could be saved on the doctrine of de-facto Judge, since the amendment by which the power to adjudicate upon the claims arising under the said Act had been declared unconstitutional in SHRI KUDLI SRINGERI MAHA samsthanam vs STATE OF KARNATAKA, Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in GOKARAJU RANGARAJU v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH the Division Bench held that the decisi