Judgment :- Mohan Shantanagoudar, J. Though the writ petition is listed for orders, by consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally and is disposed of by this order. 2. Father of respondents 3, 4 and 5 namely Sadashivaiah filed application in Form No.1 under the provisions of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 praying for grant of occupancy rights over the land bearing Sy.No.176, measuring 3 acres 10 guntas and Sy.No.103, measuring 25 guntas, situated at Betta Alasur Village, Bangalore North Taluk. The said application dated 30.3.1991 was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. However, the application came to be transferred to the Land Tribunal Bangalore North Taluk, for disposal. The Land Tribunal after making enquiry, passed the order at Annexure-C, dated 30.12.1992, granting occupancy rights in favour of Sadashivaiah, the applicant. This writ petition is filed questioning the said order dated 30.12.1992, by Sri B.P.Girish, who claims to be the Managing Trustee of Someshwara Devaru Temple, Betta Alasur. 3. The records disclose that one Mr. Gurubasanna donated the land bearing Sy.No.176 (one of the lands involved in the writ petition) to Someshwara Devaru Temple for the purpose of carrying on day today activities out of the income earned from the said land. The document at Annexure-A produced by the petitioner evidences the same. No date is mentioned therein to show as to when the land was gifted by said Gurubasanna. However, the copies of record of rights produced along with the statement of objections disclose that the name of temple is forthcoming in the year 1965-66. The tax paid receipts pertaining to the land in question are of the year 1962. Therefore, it is prima facie clear that the donation was made prior to 1962. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner did not have notice of the proceedings before the Tribunal; that the land is not an inam land and consequently, the Tahsildar cannot represent the temple; that even assuming that the land is an inam land, the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction and the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to pass such orders. Per contra it is argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition, inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that he is a Managing Trustee of Someshwara Devaru Temple; that the original applicant viz., Sadashivaiah was cultivating the land in question all through since 40 years, which is clear from the copies of the record of rights and tax paid receipts; that as the lands in question are the inam lands, the Tahsildar is entitled to represent the Temple. Lastly it is submitted that the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the application filed in Form No.1 under the provisions of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. 5. The document at Annexure-A is issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk Bangalore. The said document at Annexure-A is the copy of the Register of Record of Rights pertaining to Betta Alasur Village. The name of Someshwara Devaru temple is found at Sl.No.360 and it is mentioned therein that the land bearing Sy.No.176 is donated by Gurubasanna for the temple. The Revenue Register maintained by the concerned revenue authorities vide Annexure-A clearly discloses that the land is donated to Someshwara Devaru temple. Thus, the land bearing Sy.No. 176 clearly falls within the meaning of "inam land". In this context, it is relevant to note the provisions of Section 1(3) of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, which read thus:- "Section 1: .......... .(1) .................... .(2) ...................... .(3) It applies to- a) Personal inams including the Yelandur Jahgir but excluding any enfranchised inam in respect of which full land revenue assessment is payable; b) Khayamgutta villagers; c) Kodagi and Bawadi Daswandam inams; d) Miscellaneous service inams including artisan inams, and excluding village service inams held by Shanbhogs and Patels, Thotis, Talaris and Nirgantis. .(1) .................... .(2) ...................... .(3) It applies to- a) Personal inams including the Yelandur Jahgir but excluding any enfranchised inam in respect of which full land revenue assessment is payable; b) Khayamgutta villagers; c) Kodagi and Bawadi Daswandam inams; d) Miscellaneous service inams including artisan inams, and excluding village service inams held by Shanbhogs and Patels, Thotis, Talaris and Nirgantis. Explanation:- `Personal inam, `Kodagi or Bawadi Daswandam inam, `Artisan inam or `Miscellaneous service inam means a grant of a village, portion of a village, land or total or partial exemption of land revenue, entered in the register of inams, quit rent register, alienation register, or any revenue account maintained by or under the authority of Government- .(i) in the case of personal inam, as personal inam, Brahmadaya inam, Agrahara inam, Shrotrium inam, Khayamgutta, Bhatamanya, Bharta Vrithi or Bramhadaya, Nanparvarsh inam, Raktakodigi or Netra Vattada inam, ambiga inam, Anche Javan inam, Gollur inam, Palki inam, Sangitagar inam, Kaviswara inam, Fireworks inam, Bhattaraju inam, Bombe or Bonunalata inam, Killekyatara inam, Ghante Kodigi inam, Mondi inam, Bububudike inam, Punchangi inam and Pitteddala inam; .(ii) in the case of Kodagi or Bawadi Daswandam inam, as Kodgi inam or Bawadi Daswandam inam; (iii) in the case of artisan main, as Barber or Hajam inam, Blacksmith or lohar inam, Washerman or dhobi inam, carpenter or badagi inam, nirganti or kolavar or Munugu inam, potter or kumbar inam, cobbler or chamber inam, or scavenger or Madigar inam; .(iv) in the case of Miscellaneous Service inam, as Devadaya Service inam, Bhuta uttar, Pujari inam, Nandadipa inam, Naivedya inam, Mantrapushpa inam, Parayana inam, Huvina inam, Vyasa Puje inam, Rathotsava inam, or Teru, .(v) Manya, Dadder inam, Rakhavale inam, Tafe inam, Maha Punish inam, Karokal inam, Dasari or Konlikar inam, Bhajantri inam, Sringanada inam, Karadivadya inam, Jangam or Puravaraga inam, Lingadavira inam, asadi inam, Potreiu inam, Masalchi inam, Jain Basti inam, Masjid inam, Darga inam, Khayi inam, Bhairagi and Gosayi inam, Chuttram inam, tope inam, Avenue inam, Despandya inam, Desamukhi inam, Desakulkarni inam, nadiga inam, Nadagovidike inam, Seth inam, Chelvadi inam, Sayer Shanbog inam, Kote and Buraj inam, Sunnakallu inam, Pattari or Shroffinam, Medar inam, Kurubar inam, Kerebandi, kerekona or Khulgri inam, Sunna kallu inam and Gidekaval Hosargaval Kavalgar inam. (Emphasis supplied) The explanation to sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Act clearly reveals that the Religious inam or Charitable inam means, any grant of land entered in the register of inams or qit rent register, alienation register or any revenue account maintained by the authority or under the authority of the Government as Devadaya inam or Dharmadaya inam. Annexure-A admittedly is a document relating to revenue account maintained under the authority of Government. The land in question i.e., Sy.No.176 is clearly mentioned as having been donated to the temple for its purpose. Thus the same is Dharamdaya inam. Therefore, it cannot be said that the land bearing Sy.No.176 is not an inam land. If the land in question is an inam land, then the Tahsildar is the proper authority to represent the Temple. In this matter, though the cause-title of the order does not disclose that the temple was not represented by any authority, the records maintained by the Land Tribunal clearly reveal that the notice was issued to the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, on 29.4.1992 by the office of the Land Tribunal. The said notice is served on the Tahsildar on 6.5.1992. Copy of the notice is found at-page No.4 of the records maintained by the Land Tribunal. More over, the Tahsildar being the Secretary of the Land Tribunal knew about the proceedings. Be that as it may, the records clearly reveal that the notice is issued to the Tahsildar and the said notice is served on the Tahsildar and therefore it cannot be said that the temple was not notified. Except stating that the petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the Temple, he has not produced anything to show that he is the Managing Trustee and that he is validly representing the Trust. Thus, this Court holds that the petitioner has no locus standi to represent Someshwara Devaru Temple. The record of rights of the year 1967 onwards which are produced along with the statement of objections clearly reveal that the original applicant Sadashivaiah was continuously cultivating the property as the Archak. He has paid the tax for the land in question from 1962 onwards. All these factors are taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order. He has paid the tax for the land in question from 1962 onwards. All these factors are taken into consideration by the Land Tribunal while passing the impugned order. As the original applicant Sadashivaiah has been cultivating the property continuously all through, the Land Tribunal was justified in granting occupancy rights in favour of Sadashivaiah. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of M.B. Ramachandran vs. Gowramma & others AIR 2005 SC 2671 , reported in the Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matters arising out of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act (18 of 1955). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to pass the order impugned. In view of the above, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Even otherwise, this writ petition is filed after the lapse of 16 years from the date of the impugned order without valid explanation for condonation of delay. Hence, the order cannot be interfered with at this stage at the behest of the third party, who is unconcerned with the order of the Land Tribunal. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly, same is dismissed.