( 1 ) THE question involved in this pefition under Art. 226, is of considerable importance and that is, whether under the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rule, 1960 (hereinafter referred to. as 'the Rules'), the Dy. Commr. of a district is competent to resume land for contravening the terms of its grant. ( 2 ) THE facts leading up to this petition are In 1962, the Tahsildar shimoga. Taluk granted two acres of land each to some of the landless residents of the village. The grant was made at an upset price of Rs. 25 per acre followed by the issuance of grant certincate in which it was staged that the grantees shall not alienate the land for 15 years. The grantees remained in. possession for about 6 years, and thereafter, they sold their land to the petitioner for valid consideration. ( 3 ) ON coming to know of the alienation, the Dy. Commr. issued notices to the grantees to show cause why the land granted to them, should not be resumed. In the enquiry held by Mm, the petitioner was also heard in the matter. He resisted in vain, the action of the Dy. Commr who by his order dt. 20th Feb. 1971, cancelled the said grants and resumed the land free from all encumbrances with a direction to evict the petitioner therefrom. ( 4 ) AGAINST the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the div. Commr. who dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner has no right to prefer an appeal. His further appeal to the Govt. , was also dismissed, but on different grounds. ( 5 ) THIS petition now brought is primarily on the contention that the dy. Commr. has no jurisdiction to resume the land. The relevant provisions which have material bearing on the question are Ss. 3 and 8 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 43g (7) of the Rules. Section 3 provides : section 8 provides : rule 43g (7) provides: ( 6 ) IT may be relevant to refer to Rule 43-1 of the Rules. The said rule confers power to cancel a grant on the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations. Section 3 provides : section 8 provides : rule 43g (7) provides: ( 6 ) IT may be relevant to refer to Rule 43-1 of the Rules. The said rule confers power to cancel a grant on the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations. Under the said rule, the authority which granted the land has no power to cancel it on the ground that the grantee has contravened the terms of the grant. ( 7 ) RULE 43g (7) simply states that the grant is liable to be teminated and the land resumed if any o,f the conditions of the grant is not fulfilled. It does not specify the authority empowered to cancel the grant. In these circumstances, whether it would be competent for the Dy. Commr to terminate the grant and resume the land to Govt. is the only question for decision. The power of the Dy. Commr. is located under S. 8 of the Kar. Land revenue Act. He could, in his district, exercise all the powers and discharge all the duties conferred and imposed on him under the Land Revenue Act or under any law for the time being in force. Obviously, there is no specific provision in the Land Revenue Act conferring power on him, to cancel any grant either made by him or any other authority. There is no other law by which such power is conferred upon him. The Dy. Commr. may also exercise such powers and discharge such duties as are conferred and imposed on Asst. Commr. under the Land Revenue Act. But the power to resume land for the contravention of the terms of any grant has not been given by any law to the Asst. Commr. Therefore, there, is no question off the Dy. Commr. exercising the power of the Asst. Commr. In all other matters which are not specially provided for by law, Dy. Commr. shall act according to the instructions of the State Govt. But so far as the grant of land and its resumption are concerned it cannot be said that they are masters not specially provided for by law. They are regulated by the provisions of the Land Grant Rules. Therefore, the Dy. Commr. on the said matters coud not have acted at the instructions of the Govt. But so far as the grant of land and its resumption are concerned it cannot be said that they are masters not specially provided for by law. They are regulated by the provisions of the Land Grant Rules. Therefore, the Dy. Commr. on the said matters coud not have acted at the instructions of the Govt. Apart from that, it is not the case of the respondents that the Dy. Commr, has terminated the grant and resumed the land at the instruction of the Govt. It seems to me, therefore that the impugned order by the Dy. Commr. must be held to be without authority of law. ( 8 ) THE view taken by the Govt that in the absence of an authority specified under Rule 43g (7) the Dy. Commr. shall be held to have power to resume the land, cannot be sustained. Under the Rules the Dy. Commr. cannot epcercise power which is not conferred upon him. He has no inherent power to regulate the land grant. He is not a chief controlling authority in matters relating to Government land. Under S. 3, it is the State govt. which shall be the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected with land and land revenue administration. Therefore the Dy. Commr cannot be held to have any implied power in matters pertaining to land and land revenue administration. He cannot also be considered as an agent of the Govt. while performing his functions under the Act. The same was the view taken by the Bombay High Court in State of Bombay v. Chhaganlal Cangaram Lavar 56 Bom. L. R. 1084 wherein it was observed at p. 1095:. . . . . Now it is wrong to introduce the principles of agency when considering the various functions to be discharged by Officers under the Land Revenue Code. These functions are not discharged by these oncers as agent of Govt. These functions are discharged by them as officers upon "whom certain obligations are imposed by statute and certain discretion is vested by statute. Therefore, in exercising these functions they are exercising statutory duties and not duties as agents for Govt. To talk of agent and principal is in our opinion again introducing principles well understood in the law of contract which have no application whatsoever when we are dealing with statutory rights and obligations. Therefore, in exercising these functions they are exercising statutory duties and not duties as agents for Govt. To talk of agent and principal is in our opinion again introducing principles well understood in the law of contract which have no application whatsoever when we are dealing with statutory rights and obligations. With respect, I entirely agree with the above observation. ( 9 ) IN this, context it may not be out of place to refer to Karnataka land Grant Rules 1969, in which there is a special provision conferring power to resume land on an authority which granted the land in all matters where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or for the contravention o,f the terms of the grant. Under the said Rule, the authority which granted the land would be competent to resume it even for the contravention of the terms of the grant. But there was no similar rule when the Dy. Commr. made the order which is impugned in the present case. It must, therefore follow that the Dy. Commr. then had no power to terminate the grant and resume the land. ( 10 ) IN the result and for the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the orders impugned are quashed. ( 11 ) IN the circumstances, no order as to costs. --- *** --- .