ORDER : 1. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore vide Annexure-L. 2. By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has conferred occupancy rights of the lands bearing Sy.No.158 and 168 (Old Sy.Nos.133 and 150) measuring 3 acres 27 guntas and 1 acre 38 guntas respectively situated at Varthur Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk in favour of legal representatives of Sri Hanumanthappa who are arrayed as respondents 4(a) and 5 to 8 in the present writ petitions. Late Hanumanthappa had sought for conferring occupancy rights in his favour in respect of these lands contending that the lands in question were endowed in favour of Chowdeshwari temple and the said lands were leased in favour of Sri Venkataramanappa archak and ancestors of present respondents 4 to 8; Venkataramanappa was entrusted with the duty of performing pooja in the temple and for maintaining the temple. 3. On an earlier occasion, application filed seeking confirmation of occupancy rights was considered by the Land Tribunal and an order was passed in favour of late Hanumanthappa on 30.04.1994 conferring occupancy rights in his favour. However, as the said order was set aside by this Court holding that it was the Deputy Commissioner who was having jurisdiction to enquire into the matter, the matter was considered by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has held that as Hanumanthappa had died, his legal representatives were able to establish before him that they were cultivating the land as tenants and were also assigned with duties of archak, hence they were entitled for confirmation of occupancy rights under Section 6(A) read with Section 24 of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. Present petitioners claim that they are the legal representatives of original vahivatdar of the temple and indeed, it is they who were entrusted with the management of the temple and the property. They claim that they have the right over the property as owners. The Deputy Commissioner has found that they did not lead any evidence nor addressed arguments or placed any written statement on record in support of their case. 5. They claim that they have the right over the property as owners. The Deputy Commissioner has found that they did not lead any evidence nor addressed arguments or placed any written statement on record in support of their case. 5. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioners invites the attention of the Court to Annexures – A to C documents to contend that ancestor of petitioners 1(a) to (c) and petitioner No.2 – One N. Appaiah had absolute rights over the property. I have perused these documents. Annexures – A and B are said to be letters addressed by predecessors of Late Hanumanthappa wherein they have assured that they would perform the pooja of the temple and look after the affairs of the temple but will not lay any claim to the properties belonging to temple. Annexure-C is the Index of Lands wherein it is noted that the lands belonged to the temple and they were inam lands endowed to the temple by members of Thogata caste for performance of pooja of Chowdeshwari Deity. None of these documents can be regarded or construed as establishing right, title and interest of either petitioners herein or their ancestors in respect of the properties for which occupancy right has been conferred by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of contesting respondents. 6. Even assuming that at one point of time, ancestors of Hanumanthappa had addressed a letter stating that they would not claim any right over the properties belonging to the temple, that does not in any manner take away the statutory right conferred under Section 6(A) of the Act to lay a claim for grant of occupancy rights. At any rate these documents Annexures – A to C cannot be taken to establish any right, title or interest of petitioners over the properties much less as absolute owners thereof. Hence, petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Even on merits, they have not established any right over the properties in question. 7. Hence, writ petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.