( 1 ) ON 28-3-1966, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar, Belur, tor grant of 5. 7 acres in Sy. No. 96 of Bekarahalli village, Arehalli Hobli, which was then under the control and management of the Forest Department, for coffee cultivation. One Shri B. N. Krishnappa, who was Qriginally arrayed as respondent No. 4 in this writ petition but who has now been deleted on the ground that he is dead and there are no legal representatives to be brought on record, was also a competing applicant for grant of land in s. No. 96. In the course of my order, I will refer to Shri B. N. Krishn appa as respondent No. 4. On 17-12-1969, Government in its Order No. AFD 100 fgl 68 (Exhibit C) interalia conveyed its Sanction, for the Release of s. No. 96 from the Forest Department and its surrender to the, Revenue department to enable that Department to make grants to certain personu evidently in accordance with the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Rules' ). Apprehending that Govt in its, order d| 17-12-69 has granted Sy. No. 96 without considering his application for grant, the petitioner approached this Court in WP. 685 of 1970. On 5-8-1971, this Court holding that the order dated 17-12-69 had merely accorded sanction for the release of Sy. No. 96 from the Forest Dept to the revenue Dept and that a grant has not been made in favour of Respt-4, disposed of the writ petition with an observation that the competent revenue authorities will dispose of the application of the petitioner, respondent-4 and any other competing applicant in accordance with law. Evidently without considering the application of the petitioner, Govt in its order No. RD IG LGH 73 d| 5-7-74 accorded its approval for grant of sy No. 96 to respondent-4. That Order reads thus :" Govt of Karnataka kar Govt Secretariat, vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, no. RD 10 LGH 73 d/5th July 1974 from The Secretary to the Govt of Kar, Revenue Dept to The Divisional Commr. Mysore Divn, Mysore sir, sub: Grant of 57. 12 acres of land in S. Nos. 184 and 186 of malesavara Village and S. No. 96 Of Bhakfrayally village, belur Taluk, in favour of Sri B. N. Krishnappa. . With reference to the correspondence resting with your letter no. Mysore Divn, Mysore sir, sub: Grant of 57. 12 acres of land in S. Nos. 184 and 186 of malesavara Village and S. No. 96 Of Bhakfrayally village, belur Taluk, in favour of Sri B. N. Krishnappa. . With reference to the correspondence resting with your letter no. LND III 199|73 d| 15-3-74 on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to convey approval of Govt for the grant of 57. 12 acres Of land (2. 04 acres in S. No. 184 and 3-01 acres in S. No. 186 of Mallasavara village and 52-07 acres in S. No. 96 of Bakravalli village), free of cost, with the existing malki thereon in favour of Sri B. N. Krishnlappa, in lieu of 62. 20 acres of land in S. No. 54 of Madagunda village, Mudigere taluk, surrendered to the forest Department. Further, I am also to state that in respect of the remaining 1. 08 acres in S. No. 95 and 4. 00 acres in S. No. 96 of Bakravalli (Total 5 acres 08 guntas) proposals may be submitted to Govt after disposal of the pending application of Sri Subba Gowda under the Karnataka land Revenue (Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupation of Lands) rules 1970. Connected records accompany. Yours faithfully, sd. (H. Marigowda) 5-7-1974 under Secty to Govt, Revenue Dept. "copy to: (1) The Deputy Commr, Hassan Dist, Hassan for information. (2) The Agriculture and Forest Dept with reference to their no. AF 132 FGL 74. (3) SGF. Again the petitioner challenged the validity of the order d| 5-7-74 of the govt in WP. 3497 of 1974. On 17-11-75 Venkataramiah, J; rejecting the contention of respondent-4 that the application of the petitioner for grant of land was not traced, directed the Deputy Commr to reconstruct the records if necessary and dispose of the application of the petitioner, respondent-4 and any other application in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in WP. 685|70. In pursuance of the orders of the Court, the Depty Commr, Hasan, considered the applications of the petitioner and respondent-4 and by the order d| 19-10-76 has rejected the application of the petitioner and has made a recommendation to Govt under Rule 7 (v) of the 1969 Rules to Govt. In this writ petition under art. 685|70. In pursuance of the orders of the Court, the Depty Commr, Hasan, considered the applications of the petitioner and respondent-4 and by the order d| 19-10-76 has rejected the application of the petitioner and has made a recommendation to Govt under Rule 7 (v) of the 1969 Rules to Govt. In this writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated, 19-10-76 of the Deputy Commissioner (Exhibit H), ( 2 ) SHRI S. C. Javali, learned Counsel for the petitioner], at the forefront of his case, contended tha,t the order of the Deputy Commr was contrary to the directions issued, by this Court in WPs. 685|70 and 3497 74. Elaborating his contention, Shri S. C. Javali pointed out that this Court on the earlier occasion bad held that no grant had been made to respondent-4 and that the application of the Petr and Respt-4 had to be considered afresh in acccordance with law. But the Deputy Commr, contrary to what had been decided by- this Court, had held that a grant had already been made in favour of Respondent-4 and the refuel of the Deputy Commr to consider the application of the petitioner is manifestly illegal. Smt P. G. Gouri, learned High Court Govt Pleader for respondents) 1 to 3, contended that the deputy Commr had correctly understood the orders of this Court and had dealt with the matter in accordance with the orders of this. Court and the law bearing on the pont. ( 3 ) IN order to examine the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out what has been decided by this Court in the earlier two writ petitions. ( 4 ) IN the first writ petition viz, WP. 685 of 1970 filed by the petitioner, this Court, after noticing the facts and the contentions of the petitioner, has held as under " There has not been any order yet made by the competent authority gnanting any land to 3rd respondent. The impugned order has merely accorded sanction for the release of certain forest areas in favour of the Revenue Dept for being granted to certain persons. The impugned order has merely accorded sanction for the release of certain forest areas in favour of the Revenue Dept for being granted to certain persons. " after recording the above finding, the Court disposed of the said writ petition with the following observations :" Under these circumstances, we feel that it is not necessary to issue any writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. We, are quite sure that the competent authority will keep in his view the relevant rules, before making an order of grant in favour of the 3rd respondent or to the petitioner or any other person whose application may be pending with regard to lands in question without considering the govt order as a direction compelling him to grant the land to Sri B. N. Krishnappa the 3rd respondent and to no other person. All the other questions raised in these proceedings by the parties are left open. "in the second writ petition viz, WP. 3497 after rejecting the contention of respondent-4 on the non-availability of the records relating to the application of the, petitioner which was the only contention that was urged by the respondents in that case , the Court proceeded to issue the following directions :" In there circumstances, a direction will have to be issud to the deputy Commr to consider the application of the petitioner, the application of reapondent-4 and any other application that may be pending in respect of ther land in question in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in WP. 685 of 1970. It is ordered accordingly. "from a reading of the orders of. this Court in WPs. 685/70 and 3497/74, (Exts. E and G) and in particular of the portions extracted earlier, it is manifest that this Court, in clear and unambiguous terms, has held, (i) that the release of the lands by the Govt in its order d| 17-12-69 (Ext. It is ordered accordingly. "from a reading of the orders of. this Court in WPs. 685/70 and 3497/74, (Exts. E and G) and in particular of the portions extracted earlier, it is manifest that this Court, in clear and unambiguous terms, has held, (i) that the release of the lands by the Govt in its order d| 17-12-69 (Ext. C) was not in favour of any particular individual and was therefore available for disposal by the Revenue Dept in favour of any deserving applicant, (ii) that no grant, as a matter of fact, had been made to respondent-4, (iii) that even if a grant had been made to respondent-4, the same was illegal and (iv) that the applications of the peditioner and, responderit-4 and others if any should be considered as if there was no grant and disposed of on a consideration of their relative merits in accordance with law. While the above is the position that emerges from the two orders of this Court, the deputy Commr, in the course of his unduly lengthy order, holds (i) that the Govt in its order d/ 17-12-69 hrd released S. No. 96 for grant only to respondent-4 and therefore was not available for grant to the petitioner or) any other person and (ii) that the order d/ 17-12-69 and the letter dated 5-7-74 of the Govt have to be construed as the Govt having exercised its powers under Rule 27 of the 1969 Rules and therefore it was not permissible for him or for the Govt to grant the land to the petitioner. It is on there two findings, the Dy Commr Was rejected the applications of the Petr. In my view, the two grounds given by the Dy Commr for rejecting the application of the Petr are clearly in violation of the orders of this Court in wps. 685/70 and 3497/74. When this Court had declared that there was no grant made to respondent-4 and that the applications of the petitioner, Respt-4 and others if any, should be considered and disposed of on merits, it was not permissible for the Deputy Commr to hold that a grant had been made to respondent-4. 685/70 and 3497/74. When this Court had declared that there was no grant made to respondent-4 and that the applications of the petitioner, Respt-4 and others if any, should be considered and disposed of on merits, it was not permissible for the Deputy Commr to hold that a grant had been made to respondent-4. For the same reasons, it was also not permissible for the Deputy Commr to examine whether the Govt had exercised its powers under Rule 27 of the 1969 Rules, which in my view, has no relevance at all and hold that there was any impediment for the grant of land to the petitioner. I, therefore, hold that the Deputy Commr has acted contrary to the orders of this Court and has committed a manifest illegally apparent on the face of the record and the same has resulted, in substantial failure of justice to the petitioner. ( 5 ) SHRI S. C. Javali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, next contended that under Rule 7 of the 1969 Rules, the Deputy Commr had no power to reject the application of the petitioner and the same should have been submitted by him to Govt for sanction. Elaboratng his contention, Sri S. C. Javali pointed out that as the extent of land to be granted exceeds ( 6 ) HECTARES of dry land, and 3 hectares of garden or wet land, the one and the only authority that was compent, to grant the land was the Govt and, not the Deputy Commr and therefore under the 1969 Rules, the Deputy commr should have submitted the applications of the petitioner', respondent-4 and others if any with his recommendations! to the Govt for sanction In order to decide this contention of Sri S. C. Javali, it is useful to read Rule 7 of the 19691 Rules which reads thus :" 7. Powers of Revenue Offices to grant lands; (1) The following revenue Officers shall be competent to grant land, for agricultural purposes other than cultivation of plantation crops to the extent noted against each : (1) Tahsildar in charge of a Taluk :-Upto two hectares of dry land or one hectare of wet land or garden land. Powers of Revenue Offices to grant lands; (1) The following revenue Officers shall be competent to grant land, for agricultural purposes other than cultivation of plantation crops to the extent noted against each : (1) Tahsildar in charge of a Taluk :-Upto two hectares of dry land or one hectare of wet land or garden land. (ii) Asst Commr in charge of the Revenue Sub-Division or any asst Commr in a Dist to whom the powers of the Deputy Commr to grant lands are delegated: upto four hectares of dry land or two hectares of wet or garden land. (iii) Deputy Commr of a District : Not exceeding six hectares of dry land or three hectares of wet or garden land. (iv) Divisional Commr:exceeding six hectares of dry land or three hectares of wet or garden land but not exceeding ten hectares of dry land or five hectares of wet or garden land. (v) In any other case in excess of the extent specified in sub- clause (iv), the proposals shall be submitted to Govt for sanction. (1a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), where special Asst Commrs for grant of land under these Rules are appointed, the Revenue Officers specified in Items (i) and (ii)of sub-rule (1) shall not be competent to grant land and the said Special Asst Commrs shall within their jurisdiction, be competent to grant land for the purpose specked in sub-rule (1) upto four hectares of dry land or two hectares of wet or garden land. (2) For the purpose of cultivation of plantation crops, the Deputy commr of the Dist may grant lands upto an extent of ,10 hectares and the Divisional Commr may grant lands upto an extent of fifteen hectares. In all other cases the proposals have to be submitted to Govt for sanction. (3) For non-agricultural purposes other than building sites the following revenue Officers may, subject to the provisions of Rule 10 (3), grant lands to the extent noted against each on collection Of market value which should include conversion fine also to be determined by them. (i) Deputy Commr. Upto an extent of four hectares. (ii) Divisional Commrs. Exceeding four hectares but not exceeding 8 hectares. (iii) In any other case in excess of the extent specified in sub- clause (ii) the proposals shall be submitted to Govt for sanction. (i) Deputy Commr. Upto an extent of four hectares. (ii) Divisional Commrs. Exceeding four hectares but not exceeding 8 hectares. (iii) In any other case in excess of the extent specified in sub- clause (ii) the proposals shall be submitted to Govt for sanction. "in the impugned order itself, the Deputy Commr in the penultimate para of his order observed thus : " In this case the extent of land to be granted is 52. 12 acres which far exceeds the powers of the Deputy Commr. Rule 7 (v) lays down that in all such cases proposals shall be submitted to Government. " after stating as above, the Deputy Commr proceeds to hold and decide as under :" For the above foregoing reasons, I hold that the Govt has exercised powers under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 and also directed the grant of land to Shri B. N. Krishnappa. On the other Wand, the application of the petitioner Shri M. Manje Gowda cannot be Sustained and is liable for rejection. The application of shri M. Manje Gowda for grant of land in S. Nos. 184 and 186 of Malasavara village and S. No. 96 of Bakaravalli village, Belur Taluk, is therefore rejected. The records may be submitted to Govt under Rule 7 (v) for sanction, of land as the extent of land to be granted exceeds the powers of the Deputy Commissioner. "when once the Deputy Commr reached the conclusion that he had no power to grant the extent sought by the petitioner, respondent-4 or any other applicant, it follows that the Deputy Commr cannot grant or reject any application for the area of land that was in excess of his powers. It is seen from the ultimate order of the Deputy Commr extracted above, the rejection of the application of the petitioner and the recommendatio|n made by him obviously with reference to the application, of respondent-4 is mutually inconsistent and is not in accord with the view expressed by him earlier. ( 7 ) IN Rule 7 of the 1969 Rules, the power of various Revenue Officers, to grant lands for agricultural purposes or for plantation purposes with reference to the area indicated against each Revenue Officer has been conferred on the various Revenue Officers. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent-4 had sought for the grant of S. No. 96, the area of which is 52. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent-4 had sought for the grant of S. No. 96, the area of which is 52. 12 acres. In that view it has to be held that neither the Deputy Commrnor the Divisional Commr were competent to grant or reject the applications made by the petitioner, respondent-4 and others in S. No. 96 measuring an, extent of 52-12 acres and that the one and the only authority that is competent to dispose of the applications for grant was the Govt and not any other subordinate Revenue Officer. In the circumstances, the one and the only course that was open to the Deputy Commr was to consider the applications of the petitioner, respondent-4 and others if any 'and submit his recommendations to the Govt for its consideration and orders under Rule 7 (v) of the 1969 Rules. In my view, the Deputy Commr committed a manifest error of jurisdiction and illegality 'apparent on the face of the record, in rejecting the application of the petitioner. ( 8 ) BEFORE indicating the reliefs to the granted in the case, it is necessary to notice one important fact to avoid any contention to be urged by any of the parties in the matter either before Govt or before this Court. 8. In the second writ petition filed by the petitioner viz, WP. 3497 of 1974, respondent-4 had contended that the application of the petitioner for grant of land was not traceable and therefore the question of consideration of his application, would not arise. In repelling that argument, Venkataramiah, J: observed thus :" The mere fact that the application made by the petitioner was not immediately available in the records of the revenue department would not disentitle the petitioner to the relief prayed for by. him. It is signifidant that in the earlier writ petition it waa not contended by any of the respondents that the petitioner had not made any application at all. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to accede to the submission in this writ petition that the petitioner was not interested in securing the grant of any land from out of land bearing S. No. 96 of Malasavara, Bakravalli villages. If the application of the petitioner is not available, it is open to the revenue authorities to reconstruct it and to dispose it of in accordance with law. "smt. If the application of the petitioner is not available, it is open to the revenue authorities to reconstruct it and to dispose it of in accordance with law. "smt. P. G. Gouri, learned High Court Govt Pleader appearing for respondents-1 to 3 fairly brought to my notice that the application of the petitioner filed on 28-3-66 had not been lost and was available with the authorities. At the hearing of the case, Smt. P. G. Gowri also produced for my perusal the application filed by the petitioner on 28-3-66. I also find in the records the reports and other papers connected with the application of the petitioner. In that view, the question of reconstructing the records as observed by Venkataramiah, J: does not arise and the application of the petitioner filed on 28-3-66 available in the records of the office of the deputy Commr is required to be dealt in accordance with the reliefs to be granted by me in this order. ( 9 ) ANOTHER factor that I propose to notice is that that according to the petitioner, respondent-4 who was a bachelor, has died, during the pendency of this writ petition leaving no legal representatives to be brought on record. On a Memo filed by the petitioner on 27-6-77 which reads thus: " The respondent-4 in the above case died unmarried. On due enquiry it is found that there are no legal representatives of respondent-4. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order abatement of the above petition so far as respondent-4 is concerned in the interest of justice. ", this Court on 27-6-77 has ordered as under : " Memo filed. As requested it is ordered that WP abates as against repondent-4. " in pursuance of this order, respondent-4 has been deleted on the same day. In view of the abatement of the writ petition against respondent-4. I cannot interfere with a grant if any made to Respondent-4. As to whether respondent-4 is dead or not and whether a grant has been made to him or not are all matters that cannot be investigated by this court and can only be investigated and decided by the Govt which has ultimately to decide the matter. I cannot interfere with a grant if any made to Respondent-4. As to whether respondent-4 is dead or not and whether a grant has been made to him or not are all matters that cannot be investigated by this court and can only be investigated and decided by the Govt which has ultimately to decide the matter. ( 10 ) IN my view, the impugned order of the Deputy Commr in so far as it relates to the application of the petitioner, suffers from manifest illegalities apparent on the face of the record and is therefore liable to be quashed. I, therefore, quash the impugned order of the Deputy Commr in so far as it relates to the rejection of the application of the petitioner and direct the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Deputy commr respondent-3 to consider and forward the application of the petitioner with his recommendations if any to the Govt of Karnataka-respondent-1 for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order, AS the application of the petitioner is pending for well over a decade, I further direct respondents-1 to 3 to dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court ( 11 ) RULE made absolute. Petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. --- *** --- .