JUDGMENT : Aravind Kumar, J. Though the matter is listed for 'hearing on interlocutory application', by consent of learned advocates for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Sriyuths Gangadharaiah @ Shamanna and Chikkanna s/o Huchappa claiming to be cultivating the land bearing Survey No.59, measuring 7 acres 8 guntas situated at Kudur Village, Magadi Taluk had filed an application under Section 6-A of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act,1955 (for short 'Act') for grant of occupancy rights and Land Tribunal, Magadi Taluk by registering the said application in Case No.LRF(KU)27/82-83 ordered for registration of occupancy rights in favour of the applicant and passed an order on 24.04.1982 by granting occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Survey No.59 to an extent of 4 acres and other lands in favour of Shamanna @ Gangadharaiah. Subsequently, said order came to be annulled and an order came to be passed on 29.09.1988 conferring occupancy rights to an extent of 5 acres 27 guntas in favour of Gangadharaiah and to an extent of 1 acre 19 guntas in favour of Chikkanna S/o Huchappa, which orders came to be challenged by the present petitioner in W.P.No.10209/1991 and other applicants, who had been granted lands by the Land Tribunal were arrayed as respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the said writ petition. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 08.03.2000 on the ground that order passed by Tribunal was without jurisdiction and Tribunal was directed to re-do the matter afresh. An observation came to be made by the Co-ordinate Bench to the following effect:- "4. The learned counsel xxxxxx notices on him. The question, whether the petitioner - Temple is a Muzurai Institution or not has to be investigated only by the Land Tribunal after collecting the evidence in this regard from both the parties." 3. On such order of remand being passed, Tribunal adjudicated the claim afresh and by order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure-R2) yet again reiterated its earlier order conferring occupancy rights in favour of aforesaid persons and being aggrieved by the said order, present petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19647/2011 (LR-RES), which came to be allowed in part by order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure-C) by arriving at following conclusion:- "5. This Court in an earlier writ petition had given directions to ascertain the nature of land i.e., whether it was originally inam land and thereafter, be re-granted to the land holders or else, whether it is a property which was given to the temple for its maintenance after the Act came into force or earlier to that. If the property is given to the temple in the usual course by the devotees, then, it may not be the subject matter for re-grant under the provisions of Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act,1955. To enable the parties to produce necessary documents in this regard to stand by their contentions and to stand by the order passed, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority under the Act." On such order of remand being passed, second respondent-Deputy Commissioner took up the claim for consideration and on 10.03.2015, adjourned the matter to 23.06.2015 and thereafter to 29.12.2015. However, a purported compromise having been entered into between the claimants, i.e. respondent Nos.3(a) and 4 herein with the contesting respondent, i.e. respondent No.2 before the Deputy Commissioner, proceedings came to be preponed from 29.12.2015 to 29.09.2015 and in terms of alleged settlement arrived at between the parties, compromise petition so filed came to be accepted and proceedings came to be disposed of accordingly by impugned order dated 29.09.2015 (Annexure-A) granting occupancy rights in respect of the land measuring 5 acres 27 guntas (excluding 17 guntas 'B' kharab) in favour of first petitioner Vijayakumar S/o Krishnamurthy [respondent No.3(a) herein] to an extent of 1 acre 19 guntas in favour of Chikkanna s/o Huchaiah (respondent No.4 in this writ petition) in respect of subject land by exercising power vested under the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act,1955 and directing the grantees to make the payment of premium as per the Act. Hence, this writ petition. 4. I have heard arguments of Sriyuths Bhaskar Babu H.J., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3(a),4,6 to 10. Respondent No.5 is served and represented by Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, but he has remained absent. 5. Hence, this writ petition. 4. I have heard arguments of Sriyuths Bhaskar Babu H.J., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3(a),4,6 to 10. Respondent No.5 is served and represented by Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, but he has remained absent. 5. It is the contention of Sri Bhaskar Babu H.J., learned counsel appearing for petitioner that throughout the proceedings before the Authorities, petitioner was defending its right over the property in question and said litigation/proceedings was handled and taken care of by Sri K.H.Honnagangaiah, respondent No.5 herein who was Director of the Sangha and for reasons best known, he was not attending to the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner after matter came to be remanded and as such, petitioner Devanga Sangha had intimated him by communication dated 05.06.2015 (Annexure-D) that authorization given to him to defend on behalf of the Sangha has been revoked and yet knowing fully well about revocation of his authority, he had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and had filed the compromise petition as though he is appearing on behalf of petitioner Sangha and had consented for the property belonging to the Temple/Sangha being granted in favour of respondent Nos.3(a) and 4 herein and as such, the said compromise is an outcome of fraud. Hence, he prays for writ petition being allowed by quashing the impugned order. 6. Per contra, Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents, viz., respondent Nos.3(a) and 4, who are subsequent purchasers of the land in question from original grantee would defend the impugned order and he would elaborate his submission by contending that petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order, it is not a registered Sangha and/or registered Trust and there was no proof of Sangha being in existence and having any right to question the impugned order. He would also contend that, when petitioner Sangha was not a rival claimant or applicant, it would have no right to seek for quashing of the order of grant made in favour of the original grantee. Hence, he prays for dismissing the writ petition by upholding the order of grant made in favour of original grantees. 7. He would also contend that, when petitioner Sangha was not a rival claimant or applicant, it would have no right to seek for quashing of the order of grant made in favour of the original grantee. Hence, he prays for dismissing the writ petition by upholding the order of grant made in favour of original grantees. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would also support the impugned order and contends that by virtue of consent given by the contesting respondents, which was based on the compromise entered into by the parties, impugned order came to be passed and as such, no fault can be found in the said order. Hence, he prays for a suitable order being passed in this writ petition. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers, it would emerge therefrom that petitioner has been litigating the issue before various Authorities from day one i.e. from the day on which the land in question came to be granted in favour of the original applicants i.e., Sriyuths Gangadharaiah @ Shamanna and Chikkanna by questioning the order of conferring occupancy rights in their favour by filing Writ Petition No.10209/1991 at the first instance and after order of remand being passed, he had again challenged the second order of the Tribunal dated 27.10.2010 in Writ Petition 19647/2011 (LR-RES) contending inter alia that land in question did not vest with the Government as the Institution is not a Muzarai Institution. In fact, both orders of Co-ordinate Bench would clearly disclose that Deputy Commissioner was directed to record a finding as to whether the petitioner Temple is a Muzarai Institution or not by investigating the same by collecting evidence in this regard that may be tendered by both the parties. When this was the factual position, the exercise which was required to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner was to scrutinize the records vis-a-vis with reference to the claim of the applicants (original grantees) as to whether said land is an 'inam land'; whether applicants were tilling the said lands by virtue of they being Archak or performing any other duty for the Temple/Deity. However, without undertaking said exercise by referring to earlier order dated 27.10.2010, under the impugned order, second respondent has opined that there was already a finding recorded in that regard that land in question is an 'inam land'. In fact, order dated 27.10.2010 has been set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.19647/2011 [LRRES] by order dated 10.06.2013 (Annexure-C). 9. Thus, the said order was no more available for being accepted. Hence, without arriving at a conclusion as to why the said finding recorded under the earlier order requires to be reiterated or affirmed, finding recorded under the impugned order that land in question is an 'inam land,' is erroneous. In other words, Special Deputy Commissioner has not proceeded to adjudicate the claim in that regard, but seems to have gone tangent. In other words, by virtue of compromise entered into by the parties and contesting respondent, viz., respondent No.2 therein (petitioner herein) represented by Sri K.H.Honnagangaiah, Director Devanga Sangha (Reg)., Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, having accepted the said compromise petition by admitting that original applicants were tilling the land and as such, they are to be conferred occupancy rights to the extent they have claimed has been granted. It is in this background Deputy Commissioner without giving or recording a finding that land in question was a 'inam land' and applicants were occupying the said land as tenants has ordered for conferring occupancy rights, which is contrary to Section 9 of the Act as well as directions issued by this Court on the earlier occasions. 10. Yet another intriguing factor, which requires to be noticed is the fact that petitioner herein, who was contesting the matter before the various Authorities had authorized respondent No.5 herein to appear for and on behalf of Petitioner - Sangha and he was conducting the proceedings on behalf of Petitioner - Sangha throughout. In fact, even in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. in Writ Petition No.10209/1991 as well as in Writ Petition 19647/2011, Sri K.H.Honnagangaiah, respondent No.5 herein had represented the Petitioner - Temple/Sangha as its Director. In other words, there was no dispute with regard to his authorization to represent the Petitioner - Temple/Sangha. In fact, even in the earlier round of litigation, i.e. in Writ Petition No.10209/1991 as well as in Writ Petition 19647/2011, Sri K.H.Honnagangaiah, respondent No.5 herein had represented the Petitioner - Temple/Sangha as its Director. In other words, there was no dispute with regard to his authorization to represent the Petitioner - Temple/Sangha. However, problem arose during the year 2015 and a communication had been forwarded by the petitioner to said Sri K.H.Honnagangaiah - respondent No.5 herein intimating him thereunder that his authorization to represent Petitioner - Sangha had been revoked or in other words, he was no more authorised to represent the Petitioner - Temple/Sangha. This communication has been forwarded to respondent No.5 herein by Petitioner - Sangha under Registered Post Acknowledgement Due ((Annexure-E) and receipt of it is also duly acknowledged by him. In this factual background, it was incumbent upon him to have brought to the notice of second respondent of his status, viz., not being authorized to enter into any compromise with the contesting petitioners in LRF proceedings. However, suppressing these facts, respondent No.5 herein seems to have entered into a compromise with alleged tenants under the compromise petition filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C. by consenting for occupancy rights being conferred in favour of original grantees and their successors in interest viz., respondent Nos.3(a) and 4 herein respectively. 11. It is this compromise petition filed by the parties which has swayed in the mind of second respondent - Deputy Commissioner to accept the same. In fact, on the day compromise petition was filed and accepted i.e., on 29.09.2015, respondent No.5 herein was no more authorized or empowered to give his consent or to enter into such compromise on behalf of Petitioner - Sangha and his authorization had already been revoked and as such, he was not entitled to enter into such compromise. Hence, on that score itself impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. Hence, on that score itself impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. Though Sri H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3(a),4,6 to 10 would vehemently contend this Court in exercise of power vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can examine the entire case on merits instead of remanding the matter, such an exercise cannot be undertaken for the simple reason that finding of fact requires to be recorded by the original Authority, viz., the second respondent as to the land in question is an 'inam land' or otherwise and in fact there was also a direction issued on the earlier occasion by the Co-ordinate Benches and in the absence of such finding recorded by the original Authority, this Court either exercising the power under Article 226 (extraordinary jurisdiction) or under Article 227 (supervisory jurisdiction) of Constitution of India, would not be in a position to appreciate the factual aspects. This requires factual scrutiny, which would be on the basis of records or evidence that may be tendered by the parties. In that view of the matter, prayer of contesting respondents cannot be acceded to. For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. Order dated 29.09.2015 passed in Case No.LRF/INM/7/2007-08 (Annexure-A) by second respondent is hereby quashed and matter is remanded back to second respondent for adjudicating the matter afresh keeping in mind observations made hereinabove. (ii) All parties are directed to appear before the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara, at 3.00 p.m. on 15.10.2019 without waiting for further notice and second respondent shall dispose of matter on merits and in accordance with law expeditiously, at any rate on or before 15.01.2020. In view of writ petition having been allowed, I.A. No.1/2016 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.