Judgment 1. The petitioner in this writ action has sought mandamus to the respondents to enquire into the allegations made by him through his complaint dated 5.11.2013 vide Annexures 'A-1' and 'A-2' regarding alleged mischievous claim in respect of certain lands situate within the territorial limits, of the respondents. 2. Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, learned AGA takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. 3. Heard Sri A.K.Subbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, learned AGA for respondents. 4. Perused the records in supplementation thereto which reveals that the petitioner C.A. Cariappa has lodged a complaint vide Annexures 'A-l' and 'A-2' before the respondents intimating them that two individuals have indulged in fraudulent acts, misrepresenting to be entitled to the benefit of benevolent provisions of the Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977 and have obtained orders granting them occupancy rights in respect of agrarian lands. 5. The allegations so made is on the basis that prior to 1955, there existed a Matt called Kannada Matt at Ammatti Bectageri village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. During the years 1955 and 1967, the then Matadhipati of the Matt mortgaged 197 acres of land in favour of Sri CP.Muttappa and B.B.Kalappa for a period of 99 years. The mortgage was usufructory mortgage. However, 3 acres of wet land in Sy.No. 12/1 and 1 acre of dry land in Sy.No. 10/1 were left out of the mortgage and were under the personal cultivation of two brothers called Shivaraju and Shankar. 6. After the Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977 was in force, one Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami applied for occupancy rights in respect of the mortgaged properties and Shivaraju also applied for occupation in Form No. 1 in respect of 3 acres of wet land in Sy.No.12/1 and 1 acre of dry land in Sy.No.10/1. 7. Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami who was not the Matadhipathi of the erstwhile Kannada Mutt falsely represented he was the Matadhipathi, seeking grant of occupancy rights. The petitioner assertively contends, from the records, it is evident the Matt itself became extinct, on 11.2.1993, But the land tribunal has granted occupancy rights to the said applicant without proper enquiry as to whether there was a Matt in existence, of which he claims to be the Matadhipathi. 8. The petitioner assertively contends, from the records, it is evident the Matt itself became extinct, on 11.2.1993, But the land tribunal has granted occupancy rights to the said applicant without proper enquiry as to whether there was a Matt in existence, of which he claims to be the Matadhipathi. 8. The main highlights in the complaint are that the applicant by name Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami could not have claimed occupancy rights because the Matt itself was not in existence. Therefore, the order of grant made in favour of such an applicant on the basis of mis-representation attracts the penal provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') particularly, Section 192-A of the Act. The application submitted by him for enquiry is with the respondents, without any action. 9. The petitioner, therefore, in the writ action reiterated the facts in brief and seeks to establish all the allegations in a detailed enquiry that is required to be conducted by the respondents. To sustain an action, the petitioner has raised several grounds and has referred to undisputed facts that revenue records in respect of property was transferred in favour of Chennabasava Deshi Kendra Swami, without enquiry. The second ground is that Section 79-B of the Act prohibits any religious or charitable Institution holding agricultural property other than the Institution referred to in sub Section (7) of Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 10. In the instant case, as there is no institution in existence, the provision of sub Section (7) of Section 63 of the Act would not come into play and consequently, the order of grant is vitiated. In substance, the main allegation is by suppression of facts misrepresentation and by distortion of facts a false claim is laid in respect of and in question. 11. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the representation given by the petitioner which is described as a complaint was required to have received serious consideration of the authorities. Prima facie, it is seen, if what petitioner says is substantiated an action under Section 192-A of the Act will be necessary. However, in this writ action what the petitioner seeks is limited relief to direct the respondents to consider his complaint and conduct a detailed enquiry in accordance with law. The circumstances warrant such relief to be granted. 12. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. However, in this writ action what the petitioner seeks is limited relief to direct the respondents to consider his complaint and conduct a detailed enquiry in accordance with law. The circumstances warrant such relief to be granted. 12. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is issued and is made absolute. The respondents are directed to act on the complaint vide Annexure ‘A-1’ and 'A-2’ and hold an enquiry in accordance with law. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad learned AGA is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.