( 1 ) AS per Chief Justice a Division Bench of this Court vide Order dated 12. 7. 2000 has referred these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition to a Full Bench as there appears to be conflicting view between DEVAKUMARASHETTY and OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS and state OF MYSORE vs K. CHANDRASEKHARA ADIGA AND another. As per the order of the Chief Justice dated 4. 3. 2003, the matter has been placed before Full Bench and has come before us on 8. 7. 2003.

( 2 ) THE point involved in these Writ Appeals, Writ Petition and connected matters is:whether the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his delegated power under Section 79 (2) of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the `act ) could withdraw the privileges in respect of `kumki rights exercised by any person?

( 3 ) AS the point in issue is identical and common in Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions as agreed, it is decided by this common Order.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the question referred for decision, we would refer to facts in W. A. No. 7594/1999. Polya Krishna Bhat was the owner of the land comprised in sy. No. 138/5 of Kabaka Village since time immemorial Kumki land bearing Sy. No. 138/3a1 was attached to said land and he had permitted Temple authorities to make use of Kumki land for Temple activities. Sri Krishna Bhat died in 1982. After his death, Kumki land had been allotted to the share of K. Seetharam Bhat Trustees of Sri venkata Ramana Temple requested the revenue authorities for grant of 60 Cents of land in Sy. No. 138/3a1. Seetharam Bhat gave consent for grant of land to the Temple. However, same was opposed by other sons and the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, mangalore, by his order dated 18. 3. 1996 withdrew Kumki right to the extent of 60 Cents as the same was ordered to be used for the 1. 1998 (4) KAR L J 459 2. AIR 1976 SC 853 public purpose of devotees of Temple during Jathras and like festive occasions. That being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy commissioner, K. Sham Bhat, son of Krishna Bhat and Polya Krishna bhat preferred Appeal No. 176/1996 on the file of the Karnataka appellate Tribunal, which by its order dated 30. 9. 1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in K. C. ADIGA s case that kumki right cannot be extinguished by executive fiat. Being aggrieved by the said order, Managing Trustee of Temple filed W. P. NO. 18214/ 1997, which was allowed by order dated 23. 7. 1999 holding that the deputy Commissioner had power to withdraw Kumki privileges in view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in DEVAKUMAR shetty AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (Supra) and W. A. No. 7594/1999 is filed against the said order by respondents 4 and 5. Respondent No. 6 has been impleaded in the Writ Appeal on his application by order dated 3. 10. 2001. This Appeal was connected with other Appeals and Writ Petition and Division Bench of this Court passed order of reference to Full bench as stated.

( 5 ) SRI B. M. Krishna Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in W. A. NO. 7594/1999 submitted that the decision of the division Bench in DEVAKUMARASHETTYs case is contrary to the principles laid down by Supreme Court in K. C. ADIGA s case and order of Deputy Commissioner extinguishing Kumki rights is an executive order and can never be termed as law and the privileges enjoyed by Kumkidars cannot be extinguished by the order of the deputy Commissioner by his order. It can be done only by a valid legislation. He has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of MACHETTIRA MACHAIAH AND OTHERS vs machettira KARIAPPA AND ANOTHER, and the decision of the kerala High Court in the case of KAMMARAN MANIYANI vs mahalakshmi RAJANI. He has also relied upon decisions of the supreme Court in the case of I. T. COMMISSIONER GUJARAT vs ahmedabad RANA CASTE ASSOCIATION and in the case of jilubhai NANBHAI KHACHAR etc, vs STATE OF

Click Here to Read the rest of this document