Sri Sadashiva Mahaganapathi Temple of Suratkal is before me in W.P. No. 17426 of 2004 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal, Mangalore dated 8-2-1977. Petitioner is also challenging the order dated 11-2-2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Moodabidri and is also assailing the correctness of the order dated 8-2-1977 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore in LRT(2) No. 1379/1976-77.

2. Petitioner-temple is one of the oldest temples and is governed by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Petitioner-temple is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 141/23 measuring 0.89 acres. The above property has been in actual enjoyment and possession of the petition temple since several decades, including as on 1-3-1974. The land in question is a non-agricultural Punja land. It was never tenanted to any one much less to one Devaki. The second respondent Devaki applied for grant of occupancy rights in respect of a portion of the land bearing Sy. No. 141/27 measuring 0.44½ acres of land, of which petitioner-temple is not the owner. Second respondent was not a tenant under the petitioner-temple, nor is in possession and cultivation of any portion of the land in question. The Land Tribunal without enquiry has now passed an order dated 8-2-1977.

3. Petitioner states that during the second week of February 2000, the petitioner-temple was surprised to receive notice from the Assistant Director of Land Records, Mangalore that on 23-2-2000 he is going to inspect Survey No. 141/23 for the purpose of plotting. Petitioner made enquiries and learnt that the Land Tribunal was pleased to grant occupancy rights in favour of the second respondent as per Annexure-B. Petitioner has challenged the correctness of the said order before this Court in W.P. No. 30365 of 2000.

4. The Land Tribunal thereafter took up the matter for enquiry in respect of the claim made by one Ramaiah Poojary relating to the portion of W.P. No. 30365 of 2000, measuring 0.14 acre of Suratkal Village. Second respondent filed an impleading application contending that she is the necessary party. Thereafter, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the order dated 8-2-1977 and rejected the claim made by Ramaiah Poojary in terms of Annexure-A.

5. Notice was issued. On receipt of notice, the contesting respondents have chosen to enter appearance. The contesting respondents would say that the order was passed on 8-2-1977 ordering grant of occupancy rights to the extent of 27 cents. Proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar and Form 10 was granted 9-2-1979. RTC also stood transferred in the name of the second respondent. It is further stated that a writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 30365 of 2000 and this Court rejected the said writ petition in terms of the order dated 19-6-2001. That order becomes final. It is contended that the petition is barred by res judicata and constructive res judicata. The contesting respondents want this petition to be dismissed.

6. W.P. No. 17427 of 2004 is filed by the very temple challenging the order dated 17-2-1977 in terms of Annexure-B in this writ petition. Same facts and same grounds are narrated in this writ petition as well. Contesting respondents have entered appearance and the contesting respondents also would reiterate same objections. In this case also, the contesting respondents would say that the writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 30366 of 2000 challenging the very order dated 17-2-1977. Same came 'to be rejected by this Court. It is further stated that the order of the Land Tribunal was given effect to by way of grant of Form 10 and also by effecting revenue entries. It is further contended that the petition is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The contesting respondents want the petition to be dismissed.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

8. Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned Counsel for the peti