( 1 ) THIS is a petition by four petitioners under Arts. 226- and 227 of the constitution of India, (it ought reajtly to be under Art. 226 only ). ( 2 ) THE petitioners are expropriated ryots. Certain lands comprising of wet, dry and coffee, belonging to them and situated in Narasimharaja- pura, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. They were paid compensation in accordance with the terms of that Act. In addition, placing reliance on Rule 43 (D) (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) rules, I960, they claimed alternative land. The total extent of the land lost by them was about 63 acres, on account of the submersion by Bhadra project. On the basis of the aforesaid Rule 43 (D) (2), they claimed nearly 231 acres of dry land in all. It is relevant to mention that the four petitioners had separately owned the lands and had made separate claims both before the Land Acquisition Officer and also before the authority competent to grant lands. However, on a consideration of circumstances such as the availability of land and their nature, the authority granted them lands aggregating to an extent of 127 acres for an upset price. Aggrieved by the said order, on the ground that it was inadequate and contrary to r. 43 (D) (2), the petitioners approached the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the MRAT.), in appeals Nos. 649 to 652 of 1968. The said Tribunal, without analysing Rule 43 (D) (2) and interpreting it, accepted the appeal and remanded the matter with a direction to this effect :" In the light of the Land Grant Rules cited above, the appellants who have lost their lands, have calculated it in terms of dry land which works out as 96 acres, 68 acres, 50 acres and 45 acres of dry land respectively, whereas the land granted to them does not comply with the rules. So the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants holds water and the appellants are entitled to have some more lands on a reasonable upset price and it should not necessarily be contiguous if no such land is available but at the same time, as per the Land reform Rules they are not entitled to have more than the ceiling limits, which is stated to be 75 acres. So in any view of the matter the orders under appeal are liable to be set aside, and accordingly we set aside the orders and remit the cases back to the learned Deputy commissioner to adhere to the Land Grant Rules as mentioned above. " ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the matter was pursued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner concerned and certain recommendations were made to the Government, as the proposed grant was clearly beyond their jurisdiction. The Government refused to accord approval to those proposals specifically on the ground that the petitioners had received compensation, justly due to them as per the Land Acquisition Act and also had been granted sufficient lands. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court, requesting for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to obey the order made by MRAT in the aofresaid appeals and to implement the order of the Deputy Commissioner produced in the file as Exhibit B. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, the learned counsel contended that Rule 43 (D) (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960, has made it obligatory on the authorities concerned with the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act to grant proportionate extent of land to those whose lands have been so acquired. He further contended that the direction issued by the MRAT in the aforementioned appeals was bound to be obeyed by the authorities, such as the deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner, who are competent to grant lands as per the rules. It is also contended that the autherities who have dealt with the matter of grant pursuant to the directions issued by the MRAT had exercised their discretion and made appropriate recommendations in accordance with law and it was not open to the government to refuse to accord approval to such proposals. On a careful examination of the matter, I am not persuaded to accept any of the above contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE first contention relates to the interpretation of Rule 43 (D), (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. On a careful examination of the matter, I am not persuaded to accept any of the above contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. ( 5 ) THE first contention relates to the interpretation of Rule 43 (D), (2) of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960. It reads thus : (as reproduced in the order of the MRAT):" 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, and the explanation given for the purposes of this sub-rule one acre of garden land shall be deemed to be equivalent to one acre of wet land haying assured irrigation facilities from tanks or channels or two acres of other kinds of wet land or four acres of dry land for calculating the extent of land to be granted. " ( 6 ) THE first part of this Rule clearly enables the authority to grant the land, and sets a limit as to the extent to be so granted. In other words, a ceiling has been fixed as to the extent to be granted. The words ' shall not exceed occurring therein would not mean that the grantee shall be entitled to an extent equivalent to the land lost under acquisition in all circumstances. Indeed, as the Rule is worded, I am inclined to think that certain amount of discretion is vested in the authority competent to grant land, upto a maximum of the total extent of land lost by a grantee by any acquisition. Putting it in another way, it vests a discretion in the authority to grant the maximum extent or something less than that. Looked at from any point of view, the Rule docs not make it mandatory on the part of the authority to grant the same extent of land or vest any right in a grantee to claim such land as of right. The second part of the Rule relative to the equation of wet, garden and dry lands, comes into play only when the authority decides to grant the land and determines the extent thereof to be granted. In this view, the interpretation sought to be placed by the MRAT on this Rule, which is not supported by any analysis or examination of the provision, is clearly erroneous. Since the matter is before me u/art. In this view, the interpretation sought to be placed by the MRAT on this Rule, which is not supported by any analysis or examination of the provision, is clearly erroneous. Since the matter is before me u/art. 226 of the Constitution, I do not feel inclined to accept the interpretation placed by MRAT on the said Rule. In this view of the matter, I am not also inclined to accept an incidental contention of Sri Shetty, that all the parties to the proceedings before MRAT and the other Revenue Authorities, stood concluded by this order. Looked at from this point of view, the petitioners had no right to claim the land equivalent to the total extent lost by them under acquisition, in regard to which they had also received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. In all these circumstances, this is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, I do not think this is a fit case where discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioners, even if there has been any disobedience of the order of the MRAT by the government, as contended. ( 7 ) TURNING now to the other contention, relative to the direction issued by the MRAT, it seems to me that on a fair reading of the passage extracted above relative to this matter, the direction in substance amounts to this:-That the authorities shall proceed to grant the land in accordance with the Land Grant Rules and the restrictions imposed by the Land reforms Act. 1 fail to see any clear or express direction issued by the mrat that the petitioners should be granted an extent of land equivalent to what was lost in acquisition, computed on the basis of the table provided under rule 43 (D) (2) of the Rules. Be that as it may, in view of my conclusion regarding the interpretation to be placed on the Rule, I do not think that a writ should be issued to implement the direction made by Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. ( 8 ) ONE other contention of Sri Shetty is that the authorities like the deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner have acted on the direction issued by the MRAT and made appropriate recommendations to the Government to grant the additional land as claimed. It was therefore, not open to the Government to refuse to accord approval to such recommendation. ( 8 ) ONE other contention of Sri Shetty is that the authorities like the deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner have acted on the direction issued by the MRAT and made appropriate recommendations to the Government to grant the additional land as claimed. It was therefore, not open to the Government to refuse to accord approval to such recommendation. On the face of it, it is only a recommendation and the Government, if really it is vested with the authority to deal with such matters, was well within its right in refusing to accord approval to any such recommendation. But, it is further contended by sri Shetty, that the very recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner for approval was unnecessary, as he himself was competent to grant the land and the extent of the land proposed to be granted was well within the limits of his jurisdiction. By this argument the petitioners would have me to understand that the Deputy Commissioner has sanctioned the land or that such recommendation was equivalent to a, final grant made by such officer. I am unable to accede to this contention. The fact that the order partook the character of a recommendation and had been expressly made subject to approval by Government, would be enough to hold that he had not made any final orders in that regard, nor communicated the same to the parties so as to vest a right in them. Hence, these contentions also must fail. ( 9 ) FOR the above reasons, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. --- *** ---