ORDER : By way of this writ petition, framed and styled as public interest litigation, the petitioners, said to be the residents of Kadirenahalli Village, Bangarapet Taluk, Kolar, seek to question an order passed way-back on 02.12.1981 in favour of one Kannappa S/o Periyanna by the Land Tribunal, Bangarapet, in Case No. INA 340/1980-81. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the land comprising Sy.No.95 admeasuring 2.19 guntas in the said village is belonging to Tirumala Devaru Temple under the control of Mujarai Department; and that the pooja of that temple as also cultivation of the land were being carried out by one Gopinatha Charya and his ancestors and now, the pooja is being performed by his son Naveen Acharya. The petitioners would further aver that, recently, the said Shri Kannappa obstructed cultivation of the land in question and, in this regard, the said Gopinatha Charya complained to the villagers, whereupon, the villagers allegedly came to know that the said Shri Kannappa, who is neither a poojari of the temple nor cultivator of the land of temple, falsely filed an application for grant of occupancy rights; and, thereupon, the Tribunal, without conducting enquiry, granted him occupancy rights. It is also submitted that the petitioners and other villagers made a representation to the respondents requesting them to take necessary steps to restore the property to the temple by setting aside the revenue entries and cancelling the grant. The petitioners would submit that they are aggrieved by the action of the said Shri Kannappa, who got the occupancy rights by making false representation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the present public interest litigation has been filed in order to protect the property of the temple. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having examined the record, we are satisfied that this petition cannot be regarded as genuine public interest litigation and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Upon our expressing reservations thus, learned counsel has sought permission to withdraw. However, we have declined such a prayer for several reasons, as indicated infra. 6. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having examined the record, we are satisfied that this petition cannot be regarded as genuine public interest litigation and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Upon our expressing reservations thus, learned counsel has sought permission to withdraw. However, we have declined such a prayer for several reasons, as indicated infra. 6. In the first place, it is noticed that though the writ petition is framed against an order dated 02.12.1981, as passed by the Land Tribunal in Case No.INA 340/1980-81 in favour of the said Shri Kannappa S/o Periyanna; and in this petition, several allegations have been made against the said Shri Kannappa S/o Periyanna but curiously enough, the said Shri Kannappa S/o Periyanna is not even joined as a party respondent. Obviously, no enquiry could be conducted into the allegations made against a person at his back. 7. This apart, it is clear that the petition is pointedly directed against the said Shri Kannappa and that too, against the order passed by the competent authority about 27-28 years back but without any explanation for such an inordinate delay. In the totality of circumstances, it appears that, by way of a public interest litigation, the petitioners seek to settle some other scores and for that matter, seek reopening of the concluded proceedings without any basis and without any justification. 8. Needless to observe that if at all anyone is said to be standing in the capacity of poojari and is cultivating the land in question, the dispute could only be raised by the said person and that too, only in accordance with law. The petitioners cannot be acceded the liberty to seek re-opening of a concluded matter by making a representation and then, by invoking PIL jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Having examined the matter in its totality, we are satisfied that the present petition is not espousing a genuine public cause and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and, for that matter, with costs. 10. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances, only a token cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is imposed on the petitioners. It shall be required of the petitioners to deposit the said amount with the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Bengaluru, within thirty days from today.