ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. Helplessness of learned Counsel for petitioners and the Government and the respondents is exhibited by the submission of both Counsel saying that they have no records with them to assist the Court in decision making. 2. Having perused the memorandum of writ petition and annexures including the order dated 8th October, 2013 in W.A. No. 3553 of 2010, restoring this petition on file, by allowing the appeal, the questions for decision making are: "Whether the petitioners-Trust and its office bearers have locus standi to maintain this petition?" and whether the Assistant Commissioner and Authorised Officer is invested nth a jurisdiction under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (Act 18 of 1955) ('Act' for short) to confer occupancy rights in respect of lands in Sy. Nos. 38,40/1 and 251 in favour of respondents hand 3, by order dated 12-4-2006 Annexure-C. 3. Section 6 of the Act provides that every tenant of the inamdar other than akadim tenant or a permanent tenant shall, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV, be entitled to be continued as a tenant under the Government in respect of land of which he was a tenant under the Inamdar immediately before the date of vesting. While Section 6-A provides for pujari, archak etc., to be registered as occupant on certain conditions. 4. It is the assertion of petitioners-trust that one K. Lingaiah since deceased asserting to be the Archak of Sri Mahalingeshwara Temple, filed an application under the Act seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No. 38 measuring 39 guntas, in Sy. No. 40/1 measuring 30 guntas, Sy. No. 137 measuring 38 guntas and in Sy. No. 251 measuring 3 acres 34 guntas belonging to Sri Mahalingeshwara Temple. The Land Tribunal rejected the application, following which respondents 2 and 3 claiming to be the legal representatives of deceased K. Lingaiah jointly filed an appeal under Section 118(1-A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 before the Appellate Authority, whence, an application for adducing additional evidence on the premise that the Tribunal had not extended sufficient opportunity was allowed and permitted to adduce additional evidence. Consequent upon the abolition of the Appellate Authority, respondents 2 and 3 filed civil petition which was permitted to be treated as writ petition in view of the amendment to Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and accordingly, registered as W.P. No. 28148 of 1991. 5. A Division Bench by order dated 25-2-1994 Annexure-B allowed the petition, quashed the order of Land Tribunal and remitted the proceeding for consideration in accordance with law after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. In that proceeding, petitioners were not parties, while the Mahalingeshwara Temple was represented by the Muzarai Officer. Consequent upon remand, the Assistant Commissioner said to be the Authorised Officer for consideration of claims relating to conferring occupancy rights, under the Act, held an enquiry and by order dated 12-4-2006 Annexure-C conferred on the respondents 2 and 3 occupancy rights over 1 acre 29 guntas in Sy. No. 38; 30 guntas in Sy. No. 40/1 and 3 acres 04 guntas in Sy. No. 251 totalling to 4 acres 33 guntas, while rejecting the claim over 38 guntas in Sy. No. 137, since the land had been put to use by the Education Department, hence, this writ petition by the Trust claiming to represent the temple calling in question the order Annexure-C of the Assistant Commissioner. 6. At the first instance, the learned Single Judge by order dated 31-3-2010 dismissed the petition, which when carried in W.A. No. 3553 of 2010 by one M.B. Sridhar claiming to be the Assistant Secretary of the petitioners-trust, the Division Bench by order dated 8-10-2013 set aside the order on the premise that there was no application of mind on the question of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner "to entertain and grant land under the Act either under Section 6 or Section 6-A". 7. As noticed supra, neither Section 6 nor Section 6-A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 provides for grant of land as indicated by the Division Bench, on the contrary, the said sections relate to registration as an occupant on certain conditions. 8. 7. As noticed supra, neither Section 6 nor Section 6-A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 provides for grant of land as indicated by the Division Bench, on the contrary, the said sections relate to registration as an occupant on certain conditions. 8. Section 9 of the Act provides for determination of claims for registration of occupancy and continuation of tenancy, while sub-section (1) states that the Tribunal shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which a person claims to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 5-A, 6-A, 7 and 8 as the case may be, or in respect of which any person claims to be continued as tenant under Section 6, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed. Sub-section (2)(a) states that - No person shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 5-A, 6-A, 7 and 8, unless the claimant makes an application to the Tribunal, and every such application shall be made: (i) in respect of lands in inams which have vested in the State before the commencement of Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973 on or before 30th day of June, 1987; (ii) in respect of lands in inams which vest in the State on or after the commencement of the Karnataka Inams Abolition Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, within three years from the date of vesting of the inam concerned or before 30th day of June, 1987, whichever is later. Sub-section (2) of clause (c) reads thus: "9. (2) (c) The provisions of Sections 48-A, 48-C and 112 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the relevant rules framed thereunder shall mutatis muntandis apply to an enquiry for determination of a claim under this section and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final. The word Tribunal' was substituted under Section 9 by Act 26 of 1979 with effect from 1-5-1979 for the words 'Deputy Commissioner'". 9. W.P. Nos. 7230 and 2590 of 1979 filed by Sri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam challenging the validity of amending Act 26 of 1979 with effect from 1-5-1979 was allowed by order dated 24-4-1992 of the learned Single Judge declaring as ultra vires the entire amendment Act, 1979, while the Civil Appeal Nos. 10229 and 10230 of 1996 arising out of SLP Nos. 7230 and 2590 of 1979 filed by Sri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam challenging the validity of amending Act 26 of 1979 with effect from 1-5-1979 was allowed by order dated 24-4-1992 of the learned Single Judge declaring as ultra vires the entire amendment Act, 1979, while the Civil Appeal Nos. 10229 and 10230 of 1996 arising out of SLP Nos. 3246 and 3247 of 1993 instituted by the State before the Apex Court were dismissed by order dated 8-8-1996 without expressing any opinion on the validity of Amendment Act 26 of 1979, observing that the question as to the validity of Amendment Act was left open to be considered in an appropriate case. 10. However, in M.B. Ramachandran v. Gowramma and Others, 2005 (4) Kar.L.J. 550, the Apex Court observed thus: ".... We hold that the judgment of the High Court in Sri Kudli Sringeri Maha Samsthanam insofar as it declared the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act 26 of 1979) void in its entirety is not correct. At best, the High Court could have declared the amendments brought about by Section 3 of the aforesaid Act to the Mysore Act 18 of 1955 as ultra vires, since the question of validity of the amendments to the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 was not in issue. We order accordingly. Civil Appeal No. 5687 of 1999 is allowed to the extent indicated above. 12. However, notwithstanding the fact that the said judgment is modified, we direct that if after 24-4-1992, the Deputy Commissioner has disposed of matters under the Mysore Act 1 of 1955 which fell within its jurisdiction, the said orders will not be affected by this judgment and are saved. But from today onwards, the jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Land Tribunal, including the matter pending before the Deputy Commissioner. This, however, will not prevent the parties from challenging the vires of the Amendment Act of 1979 insofar as it relates to Mysore Act 1 of 1955, however, we should not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merit of the cases, nor on the validity or invalidity of the other provisions of the Amendment Act, 1979 (Act 26 of 1979) or Mysore Act 1 of 1955." 11. In the light of aforesaid observations in Ramachandra's case with effect from 28-4-2005, the Land Tribunal is the authority to decide claim of occupancy rights and orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner on or after 24-4-1992 upto 28-4-2005 are valid as one with jurisdiction. 12. In the instant case, no doubt, the order Annexure-C is dated 12-4-2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Authorised Officer under the Act. Hence without jurisdiction. Be that as it may, the challenge to the said order is by a trust claiming to represent the residents of the village as well as the temple. The temple was represented by Muzarai Officer in the proceeding before the Land Tribunal at the first instance and thereafter before the Assistant Commissioner. The land in question admittedly an Inam attached to a temple, it is the Tahsildar a Muzarai Officer, the authority to represent the temple. Notice of proceeding of the claim for occupancy rights filed by late K. Lingappa since dead, represented by respondents 2 and 3 was served on the Tahsildar hence, cannot be said that Sri Mahalingeshwara Temple was not notified. Petitioners claims to be a trust relating to the temple. Merely because persons join to constitute a trust, cannot be construed to be invested with rights over the temple, the deity or the properties attached to it, hence cannot be said to have locus standi to maintain this petition. Sri Mahalingeshwara Temple represented by Muzarai Officer alone has locus standi and not the petitioners-trust. In that view of the matter, the order Annexure-C cannot be interfered with at the behest of petitioners-trust unconcerned with the order of Assistant Commissioner Annexure-C. 13. In similar though not identical circumstances, this Court in B.P. Girisk v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2009 (3) Kar.L.J. 550 rejected the petition on the premise that the petitioner had no locus standi since it was the Muzarai Officer who represented the temple. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners have locus standi to maintain the petition, and the order does not call for any interference at the instance of petitioners. In the result, this petition is dismissed.