ORDER : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. The petitioners along with another sibling are said to be the owners of property bearing Khatha No.466/459, old No.466/483 and new No.570/483, situated at Pete Beedi, Nelamangala Town, Bangalore Rural District. In the said premises, there is also a private temple of Anjaneya Swamy along with two shops. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents-State through the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk tried to interfere with the possession of the temple situated within the premises. In this regard, the petitioners seem to have approached the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in O.S.No.16/2009. On 03.11.2012, the suit was partly decreed. The prayer for seeking declaration of title of the plaintiffs ownership over the suit schedule property was dismissed. However, the defendants therein, who are the respondents herein were restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs or their agents or their relatives from performing the pooja in the plaint schedule property and also in using the dwelling houses in which the plaintiffs were residing or shop premises that are in the possession of the plaintiffs. It was also made clear that the plaintiffs shall not prevent the defendants or any public or devotees from entering into the temple for performance of pooja. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out from paragraph No.47 of the judgment that the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala had made it clear that the Tahsildar of Nelamangala Taluk is at liberty to oust the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property only after, notifying the temple in question in Gazette notification as Muzrai temple, but such process shall be with due process of law and in accordance with law. 4. The plaintiffs are before this Court being aggrieved of the fact that the respondents-State issued a Government order dated 05.01.2013, subsequent to the decision of the Civil Court, notifying the temple under Section 23(a)(ii) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (for short, ‘the Act, 1997’). In the list attached to the Government order dated 05.01.2013, at Sl.No.32, the name of Sri Anjaneya Swamy temple (Hanumanth Devaru), Megalpete, Nelamangala Town finds a place. 5. In the list attached to the Government order dated 05.01.2013, at Sl.No.32, the name of Sri Anjaneya Swamy temple (Hanumanth Devaru), Megalpete, Nelamangala Town finds a place. 5. Sri Hareesh Bhandary T, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the notification is bad for two reasons; Firstly, the impugned notification is issued contrary to the observations of the Civil Court wherein, it was specifically directed that if the Tahsildar was to oust the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property, it can be done only after a Gazette notification is notified to bring the temple into the Muzrai fold, but such process shall be in accordance with law. Secondly, the respondents have not issued notice as provided under Section 43 of the Act, 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out from the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have admitted that notice was not issued as contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. 6. Sri T.S.Mahantesh, learned Additional Government Advocate, would submit that notice was not required to be issued to the petitioners, since the Civil Court had rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title with respect to the suit schedule property. 7. Having given anxious consideration to the submission of the learned counsels and on going through the pleadings and material placed on record, what remains to be seems is whether the impugned notification is sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Section 42 of the Act 1997 provides that the State Government may, where it is satisfied on the report of the Commissioner under Section 43 or otherwise that any Hindu Religious Institution, whether are not governed by a settled scheme, is being mismanaged, declare such institution to be subject to the regulation of this chapter. Provided no such declaration shall be made without following the procedure thereafter specified. 9. Section 43(1) contemplates that the Commissioner, by notice published in the prescribed manner, call upon the Manager and all other persons having interest, to show cause why such institution should not be declared to be subject to the provisions of this Act. Section 43(2) contemplates a minimum of one month to be provided from the date of issuance of the notice, for showing such cause. Section 43(2) contemplates a minimum of one month to be provided from the date of issuance of the notice, for showing such cause. Section 43(6) provides that the Commissioner may authorize any officer subordinate to him to hold an enquiry into the objections, in the manner prescribed, who shall, after giving the manager or any person having interest on opportunity of being heard, submit a report to the Commissioner as to whether or not the institution would be declared to be subject to the provisions of the chapter. 10. Section 43(7) contemplates that the Commissioner shall make a report to that effect to the State Government and the State Government may, by notification, declare such institutions subject to provisions of the chapter. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department V/s. Sri. Prasanna Veeranjaneya Swamy Trust, Bangalore and others reported in 2014(6) KLJ 447, while analyzing the provisions of Section 43(5) and Section 43(6) held that the notifications issued by the State were contrary to the provisions of Act and the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, (2002), since no enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner or a person authorized by the Commissioner. 12. In the present case, the petitioners position was already strengthen by a judgment of a competent civil Court where, though the title of the plaintiffs were rejected, the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit schedule property was confirmed and the defendants were restrained from disturbing the plaintiffs peaceful possession. Moreover, a specific direction was issued that if at all the defendants wanted to oust the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property, a notification as contemplated under the law has to be issued and Gazetted, after following due process of law. 13. In the light of such a direction, it is impossible to accept the contentions of the respondents that the petitioners have vacated the temple and handed over the possession on their own. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have admitted, no notice was issued to the petitioners as contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. No enquiry is held as required under Section 43 of the Act. 14. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have admitted, no notice was issued to the petitioners as contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. No enquiry is held as required under Section 43 of the Act. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is more than obvious that the impugned notification suffers from the vice of not following the procedure contemplated under Section 43 of the Act. The impugned notification, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned notification with respect to the temple at Sl.No.32, i.e., Sri Anjaneya Swamy temple (Hanumatha Devaru), Megalpete, Nelamangala Town, is therefore quashed and set aside. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost.