GOVINDA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner M. K. Subba Rao is a displaced holder' since most of his lands owned and cultivated by him were acquired for the Sharavathi valley Project. He is therefore a person coming within the definition of the expression displaced holder as denned in the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. He applied for grant of lands in Shankanna shanubhogue village, Sagar Taluk and also in another village. He was granted four acres of land in Nagodi village, but his application for grant of 16 acres and 23 guntas of land in survey Nos. 71, 88, 89, 90 and 96 of shankannashanubhogue village was rejected by the third respondent (Special Officer for Rehabilitation, and Irrigation Development), T. B. S. Project, Shimoga) by his order dated 27-5-1966, copy of which is annexed as Ext. 'a' to this writ petition. The said order so far as it relates to the application of the petitioner reads thus:". . . . . . Sri M. K. Subba Rao deserves no special consideration, as he is a sufficient holder. "it is clear from the order of the 3rd respondent that the reason under which the petitioner's application was rejected was that he is a 'sufficient holder. It is relevant to state that under the general rules for grant of Government lands, the essential pre-requisite is that the grantee should not be a sufficient holder. " the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the third respondent before the second respondent was unsuccessful as the second respondent took the same view as the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Sri T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders of respondents 2 and 3 are wholly vitiated by the erroneous view of the law taken by them, that in the case of grant of land claimed by a displaced holder, one of the relevant considerations was that he should not be a 'sufficient holder' and that irrelevant consideration according to the learned counsel has vitiated the discretion exercised by the 3rd respondent. The contention urged by the learned counsel, in our opinion, is well founded. The contention urged by the learned counsel, in our opinion, is well founded. The relevant Rule governing the exercise of discretion for grant of land to displaced persons and displaced tenants is sub-rule (2) of R. 43-D of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. It is relevant to set out the entire sub-rule which reads thus:" (2) The following provisions shall be applicable to the grant of lands to displaced holders and displaced tenants: (a) The extent of land granted shall not exceed the extent of land of which the displaced holder or displaced tenant was deprived due to the acquisition. Explanation: For purposes of this Rule one acre of garden land shall be deemed to be equivalent to one acre of wet land having assured irrigation facilities from tanks or channels or two acres of other kinds of wet land or four acres of dry land. (b) (i) Where the extent of agricultural land of which the displaced holder or displaced tenant was deprived by the acquisition was equal to or less than five acres of rainfed wet land, an equal extent of wet land with assured irrigation facilities from tanks or channels may be granted. Where such extent exceeds five acres, five acres plus half the area in excess of five acres may be granted in terms of wet land with assured irrigation facilities from tanks or channels. (ii) Where the agricultural land of which the displaced holder or displaced tenant was deprived by the acquisition was arecanut garden land, an equal extent of wet land with assured irrigation facilities under tanks or channels or twice the extent of other kinds of wet land may be granted. (iii) Where the agricultural land of which the displaced holder or displaced tenant was deprived by the acquisition was dry land an equal extent of dry land or one-fourth of that extant of wei land with assured irrigation facilities from tanks or channels or one-half of that extetat or other kinds of wet land be granted. (iv) Where the land of which the displaced holder or displaced tenant was deprived by the acquisition was wet land other than wet land with assured irrigation facilities from other tanks or channels, an equal extent of the same category of land may be granted. (iv) Where the land of which the displaced holder or displaced tenant was deprived by the acquisition was wet land other than wet land with assured irrigation facilities from other tanks or channels, an equal extent of the same category of land may be granted. (c) The extent of land, if any, to be granted to the displaced holder or displaced tenant shall be such that the total land held by him, whether as owner or tenant or partly as owner or partly as tenant, after such grant shall not exceed twenty five acres of garden land or wet land with assured irrigation facilities from tanks or channels or forty acres of other kinds of wet land or seventyfive acres of dry land. (d ). . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . Omitted as unnecessary. " ( 2 ) IT will be seen from clause (a) of the sub-rule that the extent of land granted to a displaced person shall not exceed the extent of land of which the displaced holder was deprived due to acquisition. Clause (c) imposes a ceiling on the total extent of the land which the displaced person can hold in case of grant to be made. None of the clauses in the relevant sub-rule provide that in the case of displaced persons or displaced tenants the claimant in order to qualify for the grant should be an insufficient holder. The very fact that the petitioner was granted four acres of land in Nagodi village under same claim shows that although he was not an inisufficient holder, he was granted some lands. The 3rd respondent undoubtedly has his discretion in making the grant, but while exercising the discretion, he should be governed by relevant considerations provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 43-D and not by any other rule which has no relevance to the question of making the grant. For the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition, quash the impugned orders of Respondents 2 and 3 (Exts. B and A) in so far as they reject the application of the petitioner for grant of land. We further direct the third respondent to take the application of the petitioner on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations. No costs. B and A) in so far as they reject the application of the petitioner for grant of land. We further direct the third respondent to take the application of the petitioner on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations. No costs. --- *** --- .