(1.) This matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by the following order after hearing Counsel for parties. Petitioner Rudramma made an application to the respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4. as a consequence of which, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Gandhinagar Range, Corporation of the City of Bangalore by his endorsement dated 14-11-1980 informed the petitioner that the khatha of property No. 265, Subedar Chatram Road had been transferred to her name in the registers of the Corporation Office.
(2.) Thereafter, the Convenor of Sri Dattatreyaswamy Temple Trust, appears to have made a representation to the Commissioner of the Corporation, stating that the property is a Muzrai properly and therefore, the change of katha obtained by the petitioner Rudramma was illegal and by misrepresentation; that the property of the Goduraya Mutt which bears No. 266 was thus misappropriated by persons having vested interest in collusion with Municipal officials As a consequence of that representation, the Revenue Officer (North) Bangalore City Corporation, Initiated proceedings, giving due notice to parties and to the Commissioner for Religious and Charitable Endowments to appear before him and produce documents in respect of the respective claims. He even recorded oral and documentary evidence. After referring to the passing of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Inam Abolition Act of 1955 he came to the conclusion that the Inam lands had been vested in the Government under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, the Inamdar the Goduraya Mutt was entitled to compensation and the property in question had vested in the Government i.e., in the Department of Religious and Charitable Endowments. He also held that the property was in tact the property of Muzral Institution and therefore, the petitioner - Rudramma did not have the right to have her name endorsed in the katha register of the Corporation as was done in 1980.
(3.) In that circumstance, he revoked the endorsement dated 14-11-1980 issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court inter alia contending that the Revenue Officer of the Corporation has no jurisdiction to review what was done earlier in 1980.