S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

In this case, the petitioners have called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 19-2-1988 in Case No. INA(KY)8/87-88 passed by the Land Tribunal, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District.

2. The petitioners claim to be the managing trustees of Sree Rama Bhajana Mandira Trust, Hunasanahalli, Kaylancha Hobli, K.P. Doddi Post, Ramanagara Taluk and District. One Narayana Rao, father of the respondents nos.3 and 4 had made an application under Section 9 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 20 guntas out of 4 acres in Sy. No. 147, New No. 11/8 of Hunasanahalli, K.P. Doddi Post, Kaylancha Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District. According to him, the land was endowed to Sree Rama Bhajan Mandira. The Land Tribunal by its order dated 19-2-1988 allowed the application and granted occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres of land in the said survey number.

3. Two of the residents of the village, namely, Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah filed an appeal challenging the said order before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bengaluru Rural District in L.R.A. No. 67 of 1988. During the pendency of the appeal, the Appellate Authorities were abolished. It appears that on an application made by Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah, the matter was transferred to this Court, wherein it was numbered as W.P. No. 30160 of 1993. This Court by order dated 5-8-2005 dismissed the writ petition. Chikkakotaiah and Ramakrishnaiah filed an appeal in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 14-8-2006. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have constituted the Trust as per the Trust Deed at Annexure-A and have filed the present writ petition.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the land in question was granted to Sree Rama Bhajan Mandira as per the grant certificate at Annexure-B, dated 12-4-1936. Sri Narayana Rao, the father of respondents nos.3 and 4 was not the tenant of the land at any point of time. He has made an application for grant of occupancy rights by suppressing material fact. No notice was issued to the landlords by the Land Tribunal. An ex parte order at Annexure-E, dated 19-2-1988 was passed granting occupancy rights in respect of 2 acres of land in favour of Narayana Rao.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents nos.3 and 4 submits that petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Two of the residents of the village had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal by filing the writ petition in W.P. No. 30160 of 1993. This Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties has passed an order rejecting the said writ petition. The writ appeal filed by them in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005 was dismissed by this Court on 14-8-2006. The petitioners cannot reagitate the matter, which has been concluded in W.A. No. 3852 of 2005. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Division Bench in Manipur Vasant Kini v. Union of India and Others, ILR 1998 Kar. 954 (DB). It is further submitted that on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal has granted occupancy rights. This has already been confirmed by the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments made at the bar and perused the materials placed on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the land in question belongs to Rama Devara Bhajana Mandira. It was granted as per the order at Annexure-B, dated 124-1936. Sri Narayana Rao, father of respondents nos.3 and 4 filed an application for grant of 2 acres 20 guntas of land out of 4 acres of land belonging to Sree Rama Bhajan Mandira. The Tribunal granted occupancy rights to an extent of 2 acres of land in favour of Narayana Rao.

8. As noticed above, the said order was challenged by Chikkakotaiah and Ramakris