M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ petition is directed against the order passed by the land Tribunal, Gubbi as per Annexure-E dt. 16-10-1981 by which it conferred occupancy rights in favour of respondents 3 to 5 to the extent of 1/3rd share each in Sy. No. 4 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas situate in Uddehosakere Village, gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District. ( 2 ) THE petitioner having been aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court in the above writ Petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside the impugned order on more than one ground. ( 3 ) THE brief facts arising out of the Writ Petition necessary for the purpose of its disposal are as follows: in the village Uddehosakere, gubbi Taluk. Tumkur District, there is a temple known as jsri gopala Devaru Temple. It is not in dispute that this temple is a public and charitable institution governed under the Karnataka Religious and charitable Institutions Act, 1927 (hereinafter called the act of 1927 ). Sy. No. 4 measuring 5 acres 20 guntas situated in Uddehosakere Village is endowed upon the deity Sri Gopala Devaru. Since thd deity Sri Gopala Devaru and the temple there of have been governed under the provisions of the Act of 1927, it is undisputed that the landed preperty endowed upon the same is also brought within the purview of the said Act. Formerly, an archak by name basavachari was performing pooja and rendering necessary services to the temple for quite some time in turn, he was also enjoying the land endowed upon the temple during that period, Due to the old- age and continuous sickness of the said archak, he requested the Tahsil- dar to appoint another person who could perform pooja regularly and while doing so, he mentioned the name of Sanjeevaiah, the petitioner herein. The Tahsildar, Gubbi, who is the Muzarai Officer of the Taluk, submitted a proposal to the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub- division, recommending the name of Sanjeevaiah, the petitioner, to be appointed as the successor of basavachari. By an order made on 8-10-1970, the petitioner was appointed as an archak of the said temple on a temporary basis by the assistant commissioner, Aggrieved by this order, Adevappa, respon- dent-3 herein, filed an appeal before the Commissioner for religious and charitable Endowments in No. DIA, apl. By an order made on 8-10-1970, the petitioner was appointed as an archak of the said temple on a temporary basis by the assistant commissioner, Aggrieved by this order, Adevappa, respon- dent-3 herein, filed an appeal before the Commissioner for religious and charitable Endowments in No. DIA, apl. 2 of 1972-73, The appellate authority having heard bot the parties dismissed the said appeal. Thereupon, being aggrieved, Adevappa took up the matter in second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the correctness of the order passed by the commissioner for religious and charitable Endowments. The appellate Tribunal having heard both the parties, by an order made on 12-2-1979 (Annexure-A), dismissed the appeal affirming the orders passed by the authorities below. Respondent-3 and -his two brothers viz. , Shivanna and Borayya, respondents 4 and 5 respectively herein, aggrieved by the said order of the appellate Tribunal, took up the matter before this Court in W. P. No. 12212 of 1979. Puttaswamy, J. , by an order made on 16-8-1979 rejected the Writ Petition affirming the order passed by the Appellate tribunal. Thereupon, respondents 3 to 5 preferred W. A. No. 1417 of 1979 directing against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of Writ Appeal, shivanna and Borayya died and their legal representatives were not brought on record, in the appeal. However, their legal representative's were brought on record in the proceedings pending before the land Tribunal as also in this Writ petition. A division Bench of this court, by an order dt. 16-9-1981, upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge in regard to the appointment of the petitioner as an archak on a temporary basis, observing as follows :-"hence we allow this appeal partly and modify the order of the learned Single Judge only to the Limited extent of directing the Assistant Commissioner to take appropriate proceedings, according to law and to decide within a period of one year from to-day who should be appointed as the permanent archak of gopalaswamy Devaru, Temple, uddehoskere Village in Gubbi taluk. "since this order was not challenged further, it has become final. "since this order was not challenged further, it has become final. ( 4 ) IT is necessary in this context, to mention that though these several proceedings right from the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, led upto the Division Bench of this court in relation to the appointment of the'petitioner as the archak by the competent authority, no whisper whatsoever was made in those proceedings in regard to the landed property endowed upon the temple, which was the subject matter of the application filed in form-7' by the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 herein seeking occupancy rights in their favour in respect thereof. As a matter of fact, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the Division bench of this Court pronounced the judgment in W. A. No. 1417 of 1979, the Land Tribunal disposed of their applications pending before it as per the order, Annexure-E, by which it conferred occupancy rights in favour of resondents 3 to 5 in respect of land in question to the extent of l/3rd share each and rejected the application of the petitioner. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court for relief in this writ petition. ( 6 ) SHRI Albal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, took me through the impugned order and other documents produced in the Writ petition in support of his case and submitted that by virtue oi the release deed, Annexure-D executed by the former archak Basavachari in favour of the petitioner the latter was put in possession of the land in question and ever since then he had been cultivating it. He further submitted that the assistant Commissioner, Tumkur sub-Division, Tumkur, by his order dt. 8-10-1970, appointed the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1927 as an archak of Sri Gopaladevaru temple of Uddehosakere and, accordingly, the petitioner was performing the pooja of the temple. Therefore, he became entitled to enjoy the land endowed upon the temple. This order of the Assistant Commissioner having been affirmed by the appellate Authority including this court, his possession was found to be rightful and lawful. But, the land Tribunal brushing aside these documentary evidence, and without providing the petitioner an opportunity of adducing evidence, proctcded to pass the impugned order behind his back. Therefore. the inpugned order was unsustainable in law. But, the land Tribunal brushing aside these documentary evidence, and without providing the petitioner an opportunity of adducing evidence, proctcded to pass the impugned order behind his back. Therefore. the inpugned order was unsustainable in law. Another contention of Sri Albal was that by virtue of Annexur-B, an undertaking given by respondent- 3, he agreed to give up his possession of the land in question in favour of the petitioner. This document was binding upon him, and, therefore, it was not open for him now to contend that he was a tenant cultivating the land under the former archak Basavachari. The Land Tribunal had failed to take into account this documentary evidence including the admission made by respondent-3 in favour of the petitioner. The Land Tribunal according to him, proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering this aspect of the matter. On these grounds, he submitted that the impugned order could not be sustained in law and the same was liable to be quashed. ( 7 ) SHRI Chandrasekara Bharathi, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5, hower, maintained that the conclusion reached by The Land tribunal in favour of respondents 3 to 5 was just and proper, it having been based on the evidence on record. Therefore. the court need not in terfere with the impugned order. ( 8 ) HAVING gone through the averments in the writ petition and the documents annexed to it and considering the nature of the land subject-matter of the applications before the land Tribunal, despite the court brought to the notice of the learned counsel on both sides the provisions of the Act 1927 governing the rights and liabilities of the parties arising In a case like this, the learned counsel failed to convince me on the questions by raised by the Court Therefore i have gone through the provisions of the law governing the subject- matter of dispute with reference to the documentary evidence on record and am of the opinion that not only the impugned order is unsustainable but also the writ petition as brought before this court is liable to be dismissed for following reasons :- at the out-set, it is not in dispute, as I have already observed above, that 5 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 4 Uddehosakere village is endowed upon Sri. Gopala- devaru Temple. No. 4 Uddehosakere village is endowed upon Sri. Gopala- devaru Temple. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner having been appointed as an archak by the competent authority on a temporary basis, continued to be holding the office of Archak performing Pooja of the temple even to this day, inasmuch as, though the Division bench of this court directed the the assistant Commissioner concerned to appoint a regular archsk within one year from the date of disposal of the Writ appeal before it i e. , on 16-2-1981, no action seems to have been taken by the concerned to appoint a regular archaka. Therefore, presumably the petitioner continues to hold the Office of the archak performing Pooja of the temple as an archak It is not brought to my notice whether any action was taken for the failure on the part of the competent authority to comply with the direction of this court. Anyhow, we are not concerned with that aspect of the matter in this writ petition, inasmuch, as in this writ petition what was called in question is the correctness of the order passed by the land Tribunal while disposing of the applications of the rival claimants. ( 9 ) A copy of the order of the assistant Commissioner appointing the petitioner as an archak of Sri gopala Devaru temple of Uddehosakere village, is not produced before me. However, a copy of the order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal affirming the order of the assistant Commissioner, is produced at Annexure-A" It is necesary to mention here that the grievance of respondent-3 against the order of the assistant Commissioner was not on the ground that he had to be appointed as an archak of the temple. Anyhow, he challenged the said order and was unsuccessful throughout. A finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the order at Annexure-A that Basavachari was enjoying the landed property while he was performing pocja as the archak of ,the temple during that period. It is for this reason and because of his oldage and sickness, he recommended Sanjeevaiah, the petitioner, for being appointed as his successor. A finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal in the order at Annexure-A that Basavachari was enjoying the landed property while he was performing pocja as the archak of ,the temple during that period. It is for this reason and because of his oldage and sickness, he recommended Sanjeevaiah, the petitioner, for being appointed as his successor. He has also executed a release deed as per Annexure-D relinquishing the office of the Archak and giving possession of the land attached to the temple Annexure-C is a mahazar drawn by the Revenue Inspector and attested by the villagers of uddehosakere for having delivered possemon of the endowed upon the temple to t,he petitioner in compliance with the order of the appellate Trlbunal. Therefore, it is clear that the Land in question, which is endowed upon the temple of Sri gopala Devaru, is left for enjoyment by a person so long as ho holds the office of Archak of the said temple and the foment he relinqulshes the office of Archak, he has to give up possession of the land to his successor as the land is meant for the up keep of the temple. Viewed from these circumstances, it is undisputed that the provision of the Karnataka Religious and charitable Institutions Act, 1927 (Mysore Act No. VII of 1927) are made applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) THE preamble of the Act of 1927 goes to show that the legislation intended to consolidate and amend the law relating to Muzrai and other religious and charitable institutions in the State of Mysore except Bellary district. Section 2 (1) defines the expression; "religious or Charitable Institution" to include an endowment for the carrying out of any religious or charitable object. Section 2 (1) defines the expression; "religious or Charitable Institution" to include an endowment for the carrying out of any religious or charitable object. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 2 defines the word "muzrai Institution" to mean and include- (i) every Matha, temple, mosque or other place of worship or religious service, every chatra or house of feeding or rest for travellers with or without charge, or other institution of a roligious or charitsbie nature, which is now actually in the sole charge of government or for the support of which any monthly or annual grant in perpetuity is made from the- public levenues or an inam is granted and is recognised and registered as a devadaya or dharmadaya grant ;- (ii) Every institution of a religious or charitable nature which, under the provisions of this Act, may be taken under the sole management of Government so long as it remains under such management. Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 2 defines the word ''muzrai Officer" as follows: -"muzrai Officer" shall mean the deputy Commissioner of the district in which any religious or charitable institution or the whole or any part of the property thereof is situate, and shall include an assistant commissioner in-charge of a taluk or taluks to whom the power of a Muzrai Officer under any of the sections of this Act may be delegated by the Government in respect of the taluk or taluks comprised in his charge. " ( 11 ) IN the instant case. it is not in dispute that the land in question is endowed upon Sri. Gopaladevaru temple and that this temple as well as the land endowed upon it is under the sole management of the Government Therefore, it is clear that it is a public temple coming within the purview of the Act of 1927 and that the Assis am Commissioner being a muzrai Officer, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the Art appointed the petitioner as an archak of the temple which is not challenged either in the writ petition or the writ appeal, referred to above on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to do so. ( 12 ) CHAPTER-II of the Act of 1927 provides for the control and management of Muzrai Institutions. ( 12 ) CHAPTER-II of the Act of 1927 provides for the control and management of Muzrai Institutions. Section-3 reads : - "chief Controlling authority :- The chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected with Muzrai institutions is vested in the government. " "deputy Commissioners, Assistant commissioners and Amildars. Their duties and powers ;- Subject to such rules and conditions as the Government may prescribe, Deputy commissioner of the District shall be the immediate controlling authority in respect of all the muzrai institutions in the district and subject to his authority the assistant Commissioner in charge of a Revenue Sub-Division or the amildar of a taluk may perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be imposed and conferred upon them by any special or general orders of the Government. " ( 13 ) IT is for this reason this court has held in more than one case that in matters arising out of S. 45 and 48a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein a land endowed upon a temple governed under the provisions of the Act of 1927 Is involved, the Muzrai Officer viz. , tahsildar of the Taluk shall be made a necessary party respondent In all such proceedings as the interest of the Government is involved. But, In the instant case, the Land Tribunal has failed to implead the Muzrai officer viz , the Tahsildar, Gubbias a necessary party respondent before passing the impugned order. ( 14 ) IT is not brought to my notice whether any committee of Dharmadarsis or wahiwatdars is appointed for the management of such public temples because, in the instant case, sri. Gopaladevaru temple is a public temple and that was the reason why the Assistant Commissioner had to exercise powers in appointing the petitioner, as an Archak. However, as i have already observed, there is a positive evidence found in the Instant case that the landed property is endowed upon the deity Sri gopaladevaru and that whoever was holding the Office of Archak was entitled to enjoy the said landed property so long as he performs the duties of archak in the temple. It is for these reasons, Annexures B, C and D have come into existence. It is for these reasons, Annexures B, C and D have come into existence. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, the question now arises for consideration is whether the landed property endowed upon a public temple as in the instant case could be brought within the purview of Ss. 44, and 48a of the act for the purpose of conferring occupancy rights in favour of all or any of the applicants including the petitioner herein. ( 16 ) SECTION 9 (1) of the Act of 1927 imposes prohibition as follows :-"no alienation or transfer by way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise of any inam land granted by the government to any Muzrai institution for Its upkeep or for the maintenance of any person rendering service in connection therewith and no act purporting to create any interest adverse to such institution in respect of such land, shall be valid unless it is authorised by the general or special orders of the government. "in deed, sub-section (2) of Sec. 9 clearly prohibits leasing of any such property of Muzrai Institution, which reads as follows :-"no lease of a property belonging to a Muzrai Institution for a term exceeding five years shall be valid unless previously approved by the Government or by such officer as may be empowered by the government In this behalf. " ( 17 ) IN other words, leasing of any such Muzrai land exceeding five years shall be invalid unless it is previously approved by the Government or by the Competent authority empowered thereunder. In the instant case, the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 5 filed application in Fo. rm-7 for grant of occupancy rights in their favour impleading sri. Gopaladevaru as the land-owner, rightly so, as this property was endowed upon the temple of Sri gopaladevaru. Therefore undoubtedly, the property having been endowed upon the said, temple it is brought within the purview of the provisions of the Act of 1927. But, while doing so, one of these applicants has brought to the notice of the Land Tribunal that the competent authority or the management or the Wahiwatdars, at any time leased this agricultural land in their favour to cultivate it as tenants. In other words, no tenancy has been claimed against any competent authority who have leased the land in question in their favour. In other words, no tenancy has been claimed against any competent authority who have leased the land in question in their favour. The impugned order made by the land Tribunal also does not disclose as to whether respondents 3 to 5, the applicants seeking occupancy rights, adduced such evidence to show that any competent authority has ever leased the land in their favour recognising them as tenants. The Impugned order is so cryptic that it does not disclose what is the nature of the evidence let in by these applicants including the petitioner. Though Annexure- b executed by Adevappa, respondent- 3, discloses that he was allowed to cultivate the land in question by basavachari, former arebak, about 4 years earlier, as a matter of fact, that what respondent-3 has stated therein is, that he was allowed to cultivate the land since he was allowed to perform the pooja of the temple. But, unfortunately, no such evidence is adduced before the Land Tribunal to enable it to record a finding on this point that basavachari permitted respondent-3 to cultivate the land, accordingly, recognizing him as a tenant. In the said document, Annexure-B, adevappa has also stated that whenever Sanjeevaiah, the petitioner herein demanded the land in question, ho would give up possession of the same in his favour. What are all the circumstances under which this statement came to be recorded in this document is not disclosed, inasmuch as, the Assistant commissiorer passed an order on 8-10-1970 appointing the petitioner as an archak of the temple about 9 months aftrer the document, Annexure-B, came in to existence. ( 18 ) BE that as it may, no evidence was let in by Adevappa, respondent 3, or respondents 4 and 5 to show that they were allowed to cultivate the land as tenants recognised " by the archak. Presuming it to be so, permission by the archack to cultivate the land would not confer any right upon persons claiming to be in possession of such land to claim tenancy rights, inasmuch as, when the Act of 1927 itself imposes condition preventing creation of lease as per Sec. 9 (1) and (2) of the said act, It would not be open either to an archak or any person claiming under him to create lease in contravention of the said section. In this context, it is necessary to point out that sec. In this context, it is necessary to point out that sec. 2 (11) of the Act defines the words "to cultivate personally" as follows :-"to cultivate personally" means to cultivate land on one's own account- (i) by one's own labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of one's family or; (iii) By hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind, but not in crop share, under the personal supervision of oneself or by member of one's family; explanation-I that came to be incorporated by Act 1 of 1974 below the above sub-section provides as follows ' Explanation-I In the case of an educational, religious or charitable institution or society or trust, of a public nature capable of holding property formed for educational religious or charitable purpose, the land shall he deemed to be cultivated personally if such land is cultivated by hired labour or by servants under the personal supervision of an employee or agent of such Institution or society or trust. " ( 19 ) HAVING regard to the definition clause of "religious or charitable Institution" occuring in Sec. 2 (1) of the Act of 1927, which I have already extracted above, it is made clear that an archak performing pooja can be construed as an agent of such institution (Muzrai Institution) for the purpose of Explanation-I under Sec. 2 (11) of the act. Therefore an archak being an agent of the temple or Muzari institution is deemed to be a person cultivating the land personally having regard to the language employed in the explanation referred to above therefore, such a person is not permitted to independently alienate the rights of the landed properties endowed upon the temple. In other words, an archak during his office performing pooja of the temple cannot, by virtue of his office alienate or create lease in respect of the landed property endowed upon a public Temple in favour of any person, much less such as archak should be recognised as a tenant. ( 20 ) S. 2 (34) of the Act defines the word ' tenant" which means an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under S. 4, In the instant case, having regard to the provisions of ss. ( 20 ) S. 2 (34) of the Act defines the word ' tenant" which means an agriculturist who cultivates personally the land he holds on lease from a landlord and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under S. 4, In the instant case, having regard to the provisions of ss. 2 and 4 of the Act of 1927, Sri gopaladevaru is the landlord. In other words, an endowment in relation to the temple shall be under the direct control of the Government as provided under S. 4 of the Act of 1927. Therefore, so long as a lease has not been created by the competent authority in favour of any person, such a person cannot claim to be a tenant validity. Since it is not the case of any of the applicants including the petitioner that he is a tenant recognised by the competent authority to cultivate the land as such, his claim that he is tenant of the land In question is nothing but an act creating illusory right which cannot be recognised by law, muchless they have not adduced any evidence to show that they are lawfully cultivating the land under a lease created by the competent authority. In the absence of such evidence, it is impossible to record a finding that they are the tenants of the land in question and thereby Ss. 44, 35 and 48a of the Act could be invoked for the purpose of granting occupancy rights in their favour. ( 21 ) SECTION 107 of the Act provides that the Karnataka land Reforms Act, 1961 shall not apply to lands belonging to Government. In the instant case, even though no evidence is adduced to show that the land in question is granted by the Government in favour of the temple, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it can safely be held that it is a Government land endowed upon the temple of sri Gopaladevaru for its unkeep or for the maintenance of any person rendering service in connection therewith. Therefore, the provisions of S. 107 of the Act comes into play. ( 22 ) COMING to the provisions of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955) (hereinafter called the Act of 1955), explanation below sub-sec. Therefore, the provisions of S. 107 of the Act comes into play. ( 22 ) COMING to the provisions of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955) (hereinafter called the Act of 1955), explanation below sub-sec. (3) of S. 1 reads as follows:-"explanation-'religious inam', 'charitable inam', means a grant of a village, portion of a village or land entered in the register of Inams, quit rent register, alienation Register, or any revenue account maintained by or under the authority of government as Devadaya inam or Darmadaya inam, as the case may be. " in view of the provisions contained in the above explanation, a person claiming to be a tenant seeking relief under the said Act, must be able to show that his name finds a place in the register of inams, quit rent register, alienation register, or any revenue account maintained by or under the authority of Government as Devadaya inam or Dharmadaya inam as the case may be so as to enable him to attract the provisions of S. 6 of the act or 1955. In the instant case, nothing is on record to show that the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 5 could be claimed to be the tenants seeking reliefs under this Act. On the other hand, all the applicants have filed applications in Form-7 for grant of occupancy rights. Tnerefore. it is clear that they have claimed occupancy rights not under the Act of 1955 but under the Act of 1961, Hence, the applicants would not get any benefit even under the Act of 1955. ( 23 ) COMING to the provisions of the Karnataka certain Inam Abolition act, 1977 (hereinafter called the Act of 1977), clause (1) of sub-Section (I) of S. 3 of the Act of 1977 defines the words "religious institution'' which means a temple. Clause (m) thereof defines the phrase "religious or charitable inam" as under :-"religious 'or charitable inam" means grant of village, portion of village or land with total or partial exemption from the payment of land revenue made to or for the benefit of a religious or charitable institution. " therefore, one must see whether the facts of this case would answer the definition "religious or charitable inam" referred to above. It is true that the R T C. extracts produced in the writ petition go to show that Sy. " therefore, one must see whether the facts of this case would answer the definition "religious or charitable inam" referred to above. It is true that the R T C. extracts produced in the writ petition go to show that Sy. No. 4 measuring 5 actes 20 guntas of Uddehosakere viliage, the subject matter of the dispute, is assessed at Rs. 7-70. Therefore, She further question that arise- for consideration is whether mere payment of land revenue, either total or partial, assessed to such a land-though it is for the benefit of the religious institution- would be enough to declare that it is not a public trust. To answer this question, I may not find it diffcult. inasmuch as, a Division bench of this court in Veerabasaradhya and Others v. Devotees Lingajagudi Mutt and Others v. A I. R. 1973 Mys. 280. had the occasion to deal with such a question and held as follows :- a property would not cease to be a public trust by payment of municipal assessment only because no steps had been taken to claim exemption from payment when it was available. ''therefore, mere asessment and payment of land revenue or Municipal tax or Kandayam made in respect of the landed property, would not make the property ceased to be a public property, in the said decision. Their Lordships were confronted with a question as to whether, having regard to the facts brought about in that case, the properties involved therein could be said to be the properties endowed upon' the public trust or not. Certain tests in that behalf were suggested to reach a conclusion to find a remedy in a case like that. In that context, Their Lordships observed thus :-"when direct evidence of dedication of property to an idol is not available dedication can be proved by establishing (1) existence of the idol (2) visit to the place where deity is installed and offer of worship by members of public as of right (3) regular performance of puja (4) association of members of public with management of place of worship (5) Architecture and situation of the building (6) earlier statements or admission of parties if any and no document in support of the dedication is necessary,"to my mind, the facts of the present case answer the tests suggested by their Lordships. Firstly, the existence of the idol Sri Gopaldevaru is not denied. Firstly, the existence of the idol Sri Gopaldevaru is not denied. On the other hand, it is admitted by all of them. Secondly, there is no denial that the public visit the place where deity is installed and offer worship as of right. Thirdly, there is regular pooja of the temple, inasmuch as, the Assistant Commissioner has taken immediate action to appoint the petitioner in place of Basavacheri, former archak when he became unable to perform pooja on account of his old- age and sickness Fourthly, there is no denial of association of members of public with management of place of worship, though, as I have already observed, having regard to the provisions of Sections 2 and 4 of the Act of 1927, it was still under the control of the Government, to begin with. In regard to the architecture and situation of the building, there is no dispute that the deity Sri gopaladevaru as well as the temple came to be situated in the midst of the village recognised by all the members of the village as the public place of worship and there has been permanent building provided to the temple. Lastly, there is an admission on the part of respondent-3 and asserted by the petitioner that whoever held the office of archak of the temple performing pooja of the idol, he came into possession of the land endowed upon the said temple and enjoy it during his office as archak. The statement found in Annexure-B executed by respondent-3 and asserted by the petitioner has not been repudiated before me. Annexures C and D support this view that the landed property will be enjoyed by a person appointed by the Government so long as he continues as an archak performing pooja of the temple. Their Lordships have laid down the law in regard to these tests at paras 9 and 10 of the judgment, ( 24 ) THIS view of mine that the landed property Sy. Their Lordships have laid down the law in regard to these tests at paras 9 and 10 of the judgment, ( 24 ) THIS view of mine that the landed property Sy. No. measuring 5 acres 20 guntas, the subject matter in dispute, having been endowed upon the temple Sri Gopaladevaru, is governed exclusively by the provisions of-the Act of 1927, is supported by the view taken by Puttaswamy, j. , when he observed at para-3 of the order in W. P. No. 12219 of 1979 as follows :"all the authorities have concurently found that the institution is a Muzrai institution and therefore, the provisions of the Act are applicable to the temple. In my opinion, this finding of the authorities being on a question of fact cannot be corrected by this court under Art. 226 of the constitution. Apart from this, the r. T. C. records produced by the petitioners shows that the temple has been endowed with certain inam lands in Uddehosakere Village. When a temple is endowed with inam lands recognised in the revenue records, such an institution will be a Muzrai institution within the meaning of that term occurring in sub-sec. (2) of s. 2 of the Act. " this view of the learned Judge came to be affirmed by the Division bench in W. A. No. 1417 of 1979. Viewed from these circumstances, i am clearly of opinion that S. 44 of the Act could not be invoked for the purpose of vesting of the land in question. ( 25 ) THE language employed in s. 44 of the Act goes to show that all the lands held by or in the possession of tenants. . . . . . . . . . . immediately prior to the date of commencement of the amendment Act, other than lands held by them under leases permitted under S. 5, shall, except on and from the said date, stand transferred and vest in the state Government. Therefore it is clear that it is only the lands held by a person being in possession of the same as tenant would come within the purview of Sec. 44 of the Act. In the instant case, neither the petitioner nor respondents 3 to 5 was able to show that they were cultivating the land in question under a true owner. In the instant case, neither the petitioner nor respondents 3 to 5 was able to show that they were cultivating the land in question under a true owner. In deed, respondents 3 to 5 produced, along with an I. A. for vacating interim injunction, copies of R. T. C. standing in their names from 1967 to 1977- 78 in column-12. But unfortunately, these applicants failed to adduce evidence to show satisfactorily that they were or any one of them was found to be in lawful possession of the land in question as a tenant, No such finding is recorded by the Land Tribunal in the instant case, In other words, mere possession of a land by a person in itself will not create any right on such person to claim occupancy right under the provisions of the Act, inasmuch as, it is for him to show further that he was in lawful and rightful possession of the land held by him as a tenant under the law. As I have already observed, no evidence whatsoever is adduced before the Land Tribunal, nor before this court to show that any one of them including the petitioner was cultvating the land in question as a tenant paying gutta or rent to the land owner. In the instant case, not even an iota ot evidence is produced by any one of them to show that they have paid guttas or rent to the land-owner. Therefore, mere entries of their names in R T. C. would not, by itself, establish any case of tenancy enabling such persons to claim occupancy right under Section 45 read with Sec. 48a of the Act. In the view I have taken, I have no hesitation to hold that the applications filed by the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 5 in Form-7 are without jurisidiction. Such applications cannot be recognised for the purpose of conferring occupancy rights, The Land Tribunal ought to have seen whether the applicants including the petitioner had any right enforceable under the provisions of Sections 45 and 48a of the act. Since the Land Tribunal failed to consider this legal aspect of the matter, the impugned order conferring occupancy right in favour of respondents 3 to 5 is liable to be set aside. Since the Land Tribunal failed to consider this legal aspect of the matter, the impugned order conferring occupancy right in favour of respondents 3 to 5 is liable to be set aside. Indeed, since the petitioner also failed to make out a case of tenancy attracting the provisions of Sec. 45 and 48a of the act. his application also requires to be rejected. ( 26 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. The Land tribunal, Gubbi, is directed to reject the applications filed by the petitioner as well as respndents 3 to 5 as unsustainable in law. ( 27 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Smt. Meena Ramachandran, learned High Court Government pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance for respondents, 1, 2 and 6 within two weeks. --- *** --- .