1. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 28.1.2009, passed by the third respondent in Case No. LRF: CR-412/2007-08 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 8.3.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in LRF. INA (B) 19/81-82 vide Annexure-H in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk.

2. By the impugned order at Annexure-D, the third respondent has rejected the report of the Tahsildar and has held that the order of the Land Tribunal in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village cannot be interfered with. Therefore, this writ petition.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are:

The father of the respondents 5 and 6 late Poojari Rudraiah had filed application for regrant of land in respect of Sy.Nos.116/7, 116/8, 116/9 and 141 of Bannikuppe village vide Annexure-B. There was no claim in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. LRF.No.58/1975-76 was disposed of directing Poojari Rudrappa to approach Special Deputy Commissioner (Inam Abolition). Thereafter, Poojari Rudraiah filed another application before the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in LRF.No.19/1981-82. In the said proceedings, the joint statement of Poojari Rudraiah and his brother Shivarudraiah was recorded. Thereafter, the Tribunal by its order dated 8.3.1982 has held that the applicant and his brother are entitled for occupancy rights under section 5 of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act 1955. It is stated, no application was filed for grant of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. Inspite of that, occupancy rights have been granted which is wholly without jurisdiction. The members of the Land Tribunal have acted with mala fide intention.

4. It is stated, on the complaint of Hejjala villagers, the Tahasildar has submitted his report to the Assistant Commissioner regarding illegal grant. The Assistant Commissioner conducted an enquiry which revealed fraud. The petitioners came to know about the fraudulent grant in respect of Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner failed to remove the names of Rudraiah and his family members in the RTC pertaining to Sy.No.49 of Hejjala village. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.1.2009 has rejected the request of the villagers. Therefore, this writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.1.2009 vide Annexure-D and the order dated 8.3.1982 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, in case No.LRF.No.19/1981-82 vide Annexure-H.

5. The respondent No.10 has filed statement of objections contending that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property and they are not the aggrieved persons. The relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The order passed by the Tribunal in LRF.No.19/1981-82 has attained finality. The respondent No.7 has sold the property to the respondent No.10 through registered sale-deed dated 5.8.1993. After the lapse of nearly 30 years, the petitioners have challenged the order passed in LRF.No.19/1981-82. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

6. It is stated, Sri. H.M. Shankarappa, the father of the first petitioner had initiated proceedings in RRT.CR.205:88-89 in respect of the land in question before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara, requesting to remove the name of Sri. Rudraiah from the revenue records on the ground that no order has been passed by the Tribunal. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara, has rejected the request of H.M. Shankarappa and the name of Rudraiah has been entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, H.M. Shankarappa has made representation dated 1.6.2007 along with others suppressing the order dated 2.6.1989.

7. It is stated, Sri. Shivarudraiah and Sri. Rudraiah were