KALMESHWAR TEMPLE VADAGAON, vs LAND TRIBUNAL

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 108743 OF 2026 (LR-)

BETWEEN:

1. KALMESHWAR TEMPLE, VADAGAON,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590005,
R/BY PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3.

2. PADMASHRI W/O. ASHOK PANDIT
AGE. 63 YEARS,
R/O. VADAGAON,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590005.

3. SUNANDA W/O. ASHOK RAVANAVAR
AGE. 63 YEARS,
PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3
R/BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SHRI. ASHOK S/O. BHOPAL RAVANAVAR
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SINDI, KURBET, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591306.










…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench
AND:

1. LAND TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.

2. DEVADAS NANARAM @ NANASAHEB PATIL
AGE MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VADAGAON,
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-590005.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHADAB H. YADWAD, ADV.
FOR R2 APPEARED THROUGH VC;
SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER,
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. LRM/VADAGAON
SR/60 AND BHM3981C98B2DD56 DATED 07/09/2026 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. The petitioners are before this Court, being aggrieved by
the order dated 07.09.2026 passed by the Land Tribunal,
Belagavi, in respect of Land Inam bearing Sy.No.135,
measuring 1 acre 12 guntas, situated at Vadagaon
Village, whereby the claim of respondent No.2 has been
allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
father of respondent No.2, namely, Nanasaheb Ramagoda
Patil, claiming to be a mortgagee in respect of the very
same land, had earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P. No.6779/1976. The said writ petition was disposed
of by an order dated 29.08.1980, remanding the matter
to the Land Tribunal to adjudicate upon the question as

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


to whether the nature of occupation of the said
Nanasaheb Ramagoda Patil was that of a mortgagee or a
tenant.

3. Learned counsel submits that, pursuant to the said order
of remand, no further proceedings were pursued by the
father of respondent No.2. In other words, the father of
respondent No.2 had abandoned his claim. Subsequently,
respondent No.2, claiming to be the son of the said
Nanasaheb Ramagoda Patil, initiated proceedings by filing
an application in Form No.1A under the Karnataka Certain
Inams Abolition Act, 1977, on 12.01.2021. It is this
subsequent proceeding, initiated on entirely different
grounds and for different reasons, that came to be
entertained by the Land Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel further submits that, though the Land
Tribunal has referred to the earlier claim made by the
father of respondent No.2, it has not adjudicated upon
the issue in respect of which the matter was remanded by
this Court. Instead, the Tribunal has proceeded to treat

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


respondent No.2 as a tenant and passed the impugned
order. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 through
video conference, submits that respondent No.2 is
claiming his rights through and under his father, who
himself was a tenant, and that the description of his
father as a mortgagee in the documents was a misnomer.
Therefore, learned counsel submits that there is no error
in the Land Tribunal treating respondent No.2 as a tenant
and seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that,
though a direction was issued earlier by this Court in W.P.
No.6779/1976, by order dated 29.08.1980, the matter
was not pursued by the father of respondent No.2.
However, based on the documents furnished by
respondent No.2, the Tribunal has considered the
distinction between a mortgagee and a lessee and has
accordingly passed the impugned order. Learned High
Court Government Pleader fairly submits that, if some
time is granted, the matter can be reconsidered by the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


Tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the father of
respondent No.2 was a tenant or a mortgagee, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel
for respondent No.2, and learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the records.

8. Under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, a
mortgage does not have vested right to claim occupancy
rights in respect of vested land. A mortgage cannot be
equated with a tenant for the purpose of the said Act.

9. The relevant portion of the impugned order produced as
per Annexure-K, at para 18 to 25, reads as under:
“18. «ªÁ¢vÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« vÁ®ÆQ£À ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j ¸À
£ÀA:135 PÉëÃvÀæ 01 JPÀgÉ 12 UÀÄAmÉ DPÁgÀ gÀÆ.11.05 ¥ÉÊ¸É F d«ÄãÀÄ
¸À£ï:1973-74 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÀÆÌ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV F d«ÄãÀÄ ²æà PÀ¯ÉäñÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ
DVzÀÄÝ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ PÀ¨ÉÓÃzÁgÀ CAPÀt-9gÀ°è ²æà PÀ¯ÉäñÀégÀ
zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À ¥ÀÇeÁ £ÉʪÉÊzÀå ¥ÀÇeÁj ºÀƪÀ¥Àà PÀ®è¥Àà CAvÁ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ
EzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄUÁgÀ CAPÀt-12
(2)gÀ°è ¥Ánî £Á£Á gÁªÀÄUËqÀ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ zÁR® EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
19. ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ EvÀgÉ ºÀPÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ IÄtUÀ¼À CAPÀt-11gÀ°è ªÀÄÄAqÁ
oÉêÀt ªÀÄÄzÀÝw 10 ªÀµÀð CAvÁ ºÀPÀÄÌ zÁR¯É £ÀA:972 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ
zÁR® DVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
20. F d«ÄãÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1961/74gÀ PÀ®A 44
gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ°è ¤»w DVzÀÄÝ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


21. F ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ J®è «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ
j ¸À £ÀA:135 PÉëÃvÀæ 01JPÀgÉ 12UÀÄAmÉ F d«ÄãÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À
d«ÄãÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ ¥ÀÇeÁj ºÀƪÀ¥Àà PÀ®è¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ
zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ªÀ»ªÁlÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
22. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ vÀªÀÄä °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j
¸À £ÀA:135 PÉëÃvÀæ 01JPÀgÉ 12UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.04.1960
gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÁ oÉêÀt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ gÀÆ.800/-UÀ½UÉ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À
ªÀgÉUÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀǪÀðdgÀgÀÄ DzÀ £Á£Á gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ¥Ánî
EªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ªÀÄÄAqÁ oÉêÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ CqÀªÀiÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ
DVzÀÝjAzÀ CqÀªÀiÁ£À 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ DzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É d«Ää£À
PÀ¨ÉÓÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ d«Ää£À ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ
zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀÇeÉ £ÉʪÉÊzÀå ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ
§A¢zÀÄÝ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀPÉÌ UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ DUÀ¯ÁgÀgÀÄ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀÄÈvÀ ºÀƪÀ¥Àà PÀ®è¥Àà ¥ÀÇeÁj EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À
os
PÀ¨ÉÓÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ¹«í¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è
£ÀA:191/1972 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÁÝgÉ.
¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À PÀ¨ÉÓÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀéAvÀ
¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀÇgÀPÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀ
¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
23. JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸À£ï : 1960gÀ°è gÀÆ.800/-UÀ¼À
ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAqÁ oÉêÀt ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ
CqÀªÀiÁ£À ¥ÀvÀæ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÀÝ°è CqÀªÀiÁ£À CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀð
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄÄ ¸À£ï:1970gÀ°è ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÅ
¸ÀºÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ £Á£Á gÁªÀÄUËqÀ @ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ¥Ánî
EªÀgÀÄ d«Ää£À ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À
¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥ÀºÀt ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ
ªÀåªÀ¸ÁAiÀÄUÁgÀ CAPÀt- 12(2)gÀ°è CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÁ ¯ÁªÀtÂ
CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ DzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
24. PÁgÀt CfðzÁgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ £Á£Á gÁªÀÄUËqÀ @ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ¥Ánî
EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä fëvÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.03.1974 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CzÀPÀÆÌ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è «ªÁ¢vÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j ¸À
£ÀA:135 PÉëÃvÀæ 01JPÀgÉ 12UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß UÉÃt £ÁvɬÄAzÀ
¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ vÀgÀĪÁAiÀÄ CªÀgÀ
ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DzÀ CfðzÁgÀ-1 zÉêÀzÁ¸À £Á£ÁgÁªÀÄ ¥Ánî
EªÀgÀÄ d«Ää£À ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹzÀÄÝ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À
¥Àj²Ã°£É¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
25. DzÀÝjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ «ªÁ¢vÀ d«ÄäUÉ PÀ£Áðl ºÀ®ªÀÅ E£ÁªÀÄÄ
gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ 1977gÀ (wzÀÄÝ¥Àr 2021gÀ) PÀ®A 5 (2) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÀ JAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä ºÀPÀÄÌ, G¼ÀîªÀgÀÄ
DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
F ªÉÄð£À J®è «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ
j ¸À £ÀA:135 PÉëÃvÀæ 01 JPÀgÉ 12UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀPÉÌ CfðzÁgÀ- ªÀÄÈvÀ
£Á£Á gÁªÀÄUËqÀ @ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ¥Ánî EªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ 1977gÀ PÀ®A 11
gˣˎAiˀ
C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ
¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁðt¹, F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
DzÉñÀ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¨É¼ÀUÁ«
vÁ®ÆQ£À ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j ¸À £ÀA135 DPÁgÀ gÀÆ.11.05¥ÉÊ¸É PÉëÃvÀæ
01JPÀgÉ 12UÀÄAmÉ F d«ÄãÀÄ ²æà PÀ¯ÉäñÀégÀ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£À ªÀqÀUÁªÀ
£ÉÃzÀÝgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ d«ÄãÀÄ DVzÉ. CfðzÁgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ £Á£Á
gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ¥Ánî EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.03.1974 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CzÀPÀÆÌ, ¤lPÀ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ°è UÉÃt £ÁvɬÄAzÀ ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ
§A¢zÀÄÝ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÁgÀt ªÀÄÆ® CfðzÁgÀ £Á£Á gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ¥Ánî
EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ DVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀ CfðzÁgÀ-1 zÉêÀzÁ¸À
£Á£ÁgÁªÀÄ @ £Á£Á¸ÁºÉç ¥Ánî EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨É¼ÀUÁ« vÁ®ÆQ£À
ªÀqÀUÁªÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ j ¸À £ÀA135 DPÁgÀ gÀÆ.11.05¥ÉÊ¸É PÉëÃvÀæ 01 JPÀgÉ
12 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀPÉÌ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ E£ÁªÀÄÄ gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ 1977gÀ
PÀ®A 11 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀ®A 12(2) gÀr«¢ü¹zÀ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÀlÄÖ
C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ
¸ÀªÁð£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹zÉ.
C
£ÀA
UÁæªÀÄ j ¸À
PÉëÃvÀæ
J.UÀÄ.C.¥ÉÊ
DPÁgÀ
gÀÆ.¥ÉÊ
C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÀ
£ÀA
ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
01 ªÀqÀUÁªÀ 135 01.12.00.00 11.05 ²æà zÉêÀzÁ¸À
£Á£ÁgÁªÀÄ @
£Á£Á¸ÁºÉç
¥Ánî

F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß EAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.09.2026 gÀAzÀÄ vÉgÉzÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è WÉÆö¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.”


10. Since respondent No.2 admittedly claims his right
through and under his father, and the father of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


respondent No.2 had not pursued the matter despite a
specific direction issued by this Court by order dated
29.08.1980, the issue as to whether the father of
respondent No.2 was a mortgagee or a tenant has
remained inconclusive. The Tribunal has, nevertheless,
passed the impugned order recognising the claim of
respondent No.2 through and under his father.

11. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon the
Tribunal to adjudicate upon the issue for which the
matter had been remanded by this Court by order dated
29.08.1980. The impugned order extracted hereinabove
does not advert to the said issue. Therefore, it is
necessary for the Land Tribunal to address the factual
question as to whether the father of respondent No.2 was
a mortgagee or a tenant in respect of the subject
property. Only thereafter can the claim of respondent
No.2 be considered.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this juncture,
also submits that the very maintainability of an
application filed in Form No.1A under the Karnataka

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977, requires consideration.
The said submission is placed on record.
allowed
13. In view of the above, the writ petition is .
The impugned order is quashed, and the matter is
remitted to the Land Tribunal, Belagavi, to consider the
following points:
(i) Whether the father of respondent No.2,
namely, Nanasaheb Ramagoda Patil, was a
mortgagee or a tenant under the petitioner
institution in respect of the subject property?
(ii) Whether respondent No.2 is entitled to
claim the benefit of tenancy through and under
his father?
(iii) Whether, in the factual circumstances of
the case, an application filed in Form No.1A
under the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition
Act, 1977, is maintainable?
(iv) Such other questions as may be urged by
the parties.

14. The aforesaid points are only broad indications and
are not exhaustive. The parties are at liberty to raise

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17212
WP No. 108743 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020194312026


such other questions as may be advised and available to
them in law.

15. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken and an
appropriate order shall be passed within an outer limit of
two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this order.

16. Till such time, the status quo as existing today shall
be maintained.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE




VB, CT:VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29