Anjaneyyaswamy Temple represented by its Archak Sri Srinivasamurthy is before me seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27-7-2005 (Annexure-L) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.

2. Respondent 3-Krishnappa, claiming to be a tenant filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal. Same was rejected by an order dated 21-6-1977. Third respondent thereafter filed Form I under Rule 7(4) of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Rules, 1956 on 2-7-1983. Land Tribunal by its order dated 25-3-1988 rejected the claim of respondent 3 in respect of Survey No. 77 of Thindlu Village of Yelahanka Hobli to an extent of 1.20 cents. A writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 28171(A) of 1991 by the third respondent challenging the said order of the Tribunal. This Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal in terms of its order dated 14-8-1996. Tribunal thereafter granted occupancy rights in favour of Krishnappa by its order dated 30-7-1997. That order was challenged by the present petitioner in W.P. No. 22251 of 1997. Petition was dismissed in terms of the order dated 28-10-1998. A writ appeal was filed by the petitioner in WA No. 2901 of 1999. Matter was remanded by the Appellate Court to the Tribunal. The Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 passed an order setting aside the entries made in favour of respondent 3 in tem1S of his order dated 27-4-2001 It was observed therein that the name of respondent 3 was inserted in a different handwriting and ink without mutation entry. The said order of Special Deputy Commissioner was challenged by Krishnappa, respondent 3 herein, in Writ Petition No. 21743 of 2001. This Court accepted the said order in terms of its order dated 10-7-2002. A writ appeal was filed in W.P. No. 4014 of 2002 and it was disposed of on 26-3-2004 confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order in the light of the earlier proceedings granting occupancy rights in favour of Krishnappa, respondent 3, by way of an order dated 27-7-2005. That order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 27-7-2005 is challenged in this writ petition.

3. Notice was issued. Contesting respondent has entered appearance through a Counsel. Statement of objections is filed. In the statement of objections it is stated that the land in question is an Inam land. The Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) thus applies to the proceedings. An application was filed under Rule 7(4) of said Rules. An application filed earlier stood rejected on the ground of jurisdiction. Contesting respondent would refer to the earlier proceedings in the matter. Contesting respondent would say that the petitioner had made a statement before the Tribunal that he has not made any application for grant of occupancy rights in his favour and that he was interested in the said land for the temple Petitioner-Archak ought to have made an application under Section 6-A of the Act and that he has not mde any such application. The present petitioner is an employee in postal department. The land, in the light of Inams Abolition Act, vested with the Government and the same is available for grant, according to the respondent. He would also refer to the revenue entries in the matter. Ultimately, respondent would say that the petitioner-Temple represented by Sri Srinivasamurthy, in collusion with the persons who are inimical towards him, has created and concocted revenue documents in collusion with the revenue officials.

4. Heard Sri Shantesh Gureddi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would refer to various facts as referred to above to say that the impugned order requires interference on the facts of this case. Learned Counsel would say that the Special Deputy Conill1issioner has placed reliance on the order of the Land Tribunal which has been set aside by this Court. He invites my attention