CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an archak's petition to challenge the order dated 7-12-1992, passed in LRF CR 31/92-93 by the respondent 1-Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, whereunder, the said Divisional Commissioner transferred the subject lands to the respondent 2-devotees on certain conditions. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt. Geetha menon appearing along with Smt. Pramila Nesargi, Sri D. L. Suresh appearing for the respondent 2-Chandramouleshwaraswamy Trust and the learned High court Government Pleader Sri S. S. Guttal, appearing for the respondent 1-Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, bangalore. I have also perused the records. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner while taking me through the facts of the case submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent 2-Divisional Commissioner cannot sustain in law for the simple reason that the same had proceeded on a premise that the claim for grant of occupancy right to the petitioner came to be rejected and that no appeal as against the same was filed by the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case as I understand are as hereunder: that the petitioner herein had filed Form 7 claiming occupancy right in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 101, 102, 164/1, 164/3 and 108 of Mudugere village of Gowribidanur Taluk. That application was filed by him in the capacity of an 'archak' in the temple run by the respondent 2-Trust. That by an order dated 25-9-1986, in case No. LRA. INAM. H 93/83-84 passed by the land Tribunal, Gowribidanur, the claim of the petitioner came to be kept in abeyance as the Land Tribunal was not certain as to whether it had got the power to entertain such a claim. That order came to be passed on 25-9-1986 by the Land Tribunal, copy whereof is produced as at Annexure-A to the writ petition. That thereafter, based on the letter dated 29-4-1992 of the Deputy commissioner, Kolar District and further based on the minutes of the spot inspection dated 9-9-1992 by the Divisional commissioner, Bangalore Division, the respondent 1, the divisional Commissioner had passed the impugned order whereby it had transferred the subject land to be held by the respondent 2-Trust. Having been aggrieved thereto by the impugned order at Annexure-C, the petitioner-archak is before this Court to challenge the same. Having been aggrieved thereto by the impugned order at Annexure-C, the petitioner-archak is before this Court to challenge the same. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Divisional commissioner had passed the impugned order without understanding the effect of the order that came to be passed by the Land Tribunal on 25-9-1986, copy as at Annexure-A. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Geetha Menon argued that the very premise on which the impugned order came to be passed by the Divisional Commissioner cannot sustain, for the same had proceeded with an impression that the claim of the petitioner herein came to be rejected by the Land Tribunal, gowribidanur. She pointed out that by a simple reading of the copy of the order passed by the Land Tribunal, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner was not decided but kept in abeyance and therefore, according to her, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner cannot sustain. That apart, it is also her argument that sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Land reforms Act does not confer any power on the Divisional commissioner to transfer the subject land to the Trust. Therefore, she prayed that the impugned order passed by the divisional Commissioner be quashed. ( 7 ) AS against the above argument, the learned Counsel Sri d. L. Suresh appearing for the contesting respondent 2 submitted at the outset that the petitioner herein having suppressed the fact that he failed to maintain a suit for permanent injunction before the Munsiff, Gowribidanur had resorted to the instant writ petition and as such, the petition has to go on that short ground alone. Apart from that, he had also submitted that in passing the impugned order, all that what had come on in the hands of the Divisional Commissioner is to transfer the said land to the Trust and nothing beyond and according to Sri Suresh, it cannot be canvassed by the petitioner to say that his claim before the Land Tribunal had been defeated in passing the impugned order. Therefore, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Therefore, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader on the other hand while supporting the impugned order passed by the Divisional commissioner submitted that in passing the impugned order to keep the claim of the petitioner in abeyance, the claim of the petitioner stood rejected. Alternatively, he had also argued that in passing the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner permitted the Trust to hold the subject lands for the benefit of the deity subject to certain conditions as set out therein and that the said order is in consonance with sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Land Reforms Act read with Rule 22 of the Land Reforms rules and therefore according to him, there can be no grievance by the petitioner as against the impugned order to resort to the instant writ petition before this Court. He therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Yet another aspect of the case the learned Government Pleader highlighted before me is that the petitioner himself being a party for the spot inspection, he could not resort to the writ petition. ( 9 ) IN the light of the argument and counter argument advanced, the point for my consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. At the threshold, I have to point out that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is on the main ground that the claim for grant of occupancy right of the petitioner was rejected by the Land Tribunal, Gowribidanur by a considered order dated 25-9-1986. In fact there is a reference for rejection of the claim as well as for the non-appeal as against the rejection in the impugned order. But on a careful reading of the impugned order that came to be passed by the Land Tribunal, it does not appear to me that the Land Tribunal had rejected the claim of the petitioner. All that had been done by the Land Tribunal was to keep the claim of the petitioner in abeyance in view of the fact that the Land Tribunal was not sure as to whether it had power to consider such a claim or not. If that is the case, I do not think the Divisional Commissioner could proceed to pass the impugned order. If that is the case, I do not think the Divisional Commissioner could proceed to pass the impugned order. ( 10 ) ANOTHER aspect of the case is that under sub-section 7 of section 63 of the Land Reforms Act the powers vested in the divisional Commissioner is to permit the Trust as that of the respondent 2 to hold beyond the ceiling area, which is 20 units, but by reading of the impugned order, one gets a clear impression that what the Divisional Commissioner did in passing the impugned order is to transfer the entire extent of land to the respondent 2-Trust, no matter that in the operative portion of the order, the Divisional Commissioner had stated therein that the respondent 2-Trust shall hold the lands subject to certain conditions; such an impression can as well be gathered from reading the narration in page 2 of the impugned order. To quote that part, the same reads as hereunder :"the Secretary of the Trust applied for transfer of the said lands to the Trust so that they could maintain the temple from out of the income derived from the said lands. It is opined by the local officers that the said institution, has no other income and it is only possible for the maintenance of the institution from out of the income from the said lands; and therefore it is necessary to transfer the said lands to the Trust. Accordingly, agreeing with the opinion of the local officers, the Tahsildar and the assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar district sought orders of the Divisional Commissioner and prescribed authority permitting the said Trust to hold the said lands as required under Section 63 (7) of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 read with Rule 22 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974". If the operative portion of the order is read with reference to the preamble thereof, it does not appear to me that all that had come on in the hands of the Divisional Commissioner was to permit the respondent 2-Trust to hold the land beyond the ceiling limit. ( 11 ) NOW let me see what has been provided for in sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Land Reforms Act. The said Section 63 falls under Chapter IV under the heading 'ceiling on Land holdings'. Sub-section (7) of Section 63 reads as hereunder :"63. Ceiling on land. ( 11 ) NOW let me see what has been provided for in sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Land Reforms Act. The said Section 63 falls under Chapter IV under the heading 'ceiling on Land holdings'. Sub-section (7) of Section 63 reads as hereunder :"63. Ceiling on land. (1) to (6 ). . . . . . . . (7) (a) No educational, religious or charitable institution or society or trust, of a public nature, capable of holding property, formed for an educational, religious or charitable purpose shall hold land except where the income from the land is appropriated solely for the institution, or the society or the trust concerned. Where the land is so held by such institution, society or trust, the ceiling area shall be twenty units. (b) If any question arises whether the income from the land is solely appropriated for the institution, society or trust, it shall be decided by the prescribed authority. The decision of the prescribed authority shall be final. Where the prescribed authority decides that the income is not so appropriated, the land held by the institution, society or trust shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of Sections 66 to 76 shall, so far as may be, apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State Government of such land. The provisions of this sub-section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in this Act". ( 12 ) ON reading of sub-section (7) of Section 63 as above, I am of the considered view that such a power to transfer the land to the respondent 2-Trust is not vested in the Divisional commissioner. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the said provision is totally different and the same has nothing to do with transfer of lands as resorted to by the Divisional Commissioner in passing the impugned order. ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, it appears to me that the impugned order passed by the respondent 2-Divisional commissioner, copy as at Annexure-C to writ petition is liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following order : the order dated 7-12-1992 in Case No. LRF CR 31/92-93 passed by the respondent 2 Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore division, Bangalore, is quashed. Hence, I pass the following order : the order dated 7-12-1992 in Case No. LRF CR 31/92-93 passed by the respondent 2 Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore division, Bangalore, is quashed. Therefore liberty is given to the petitioner to pursue his claim for grant of occupancy right before the Land Tribunal or before the proper forum. ( 14 ) THE writ petition therefore succeeds and accordingly allowed. --- *** --- .