( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the, Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order bearing No. RD 243 LGB 74 dated 26. 2. 1976 (Exhibit V) and the Endrosement bearing NO. RD 496 LGB 78 dated 8/15th March, 1979 (Exhibit D) issued by the Government of Karnataka ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of S. Nos. 333 and 334 of amani Bellandur Khane village. Adjoining the said lands of the petitioner, there is a piece of Government land bearing new S. No. 477 (old S. No. 319) measuring about 5 acres and 20 guntas. His case is that he has encroached on, an extent of 1 acre, and 25 guntas in S. NO. 477 for about 30 years and that on 15. 9. 1975 he made an application before Government praying for the grant of that extent of land under the Karnataka Land grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). But the government without considering the said application has granted the entire extent of land, to respondent No, 3 on 26. 2. 1976 on the basis of an application stated to have been made by him some time earlier or later to his application He has asserted that respondent No. 3 is a, permanent employee of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , (here in after referred to as 'the H. A. L.) at all material times, and even now, is not a political sufferer and was not entitled for grant of land. He has therefore sought for quashing of the impugned, orders and for a mandamus to respondent no. 1 to consider his application and the application made by respondent no. 3 if any in accordance with law. ( 3 ) IN answer to the allegations made by the petitioner respondent Nos. and 2 have, not filed their return. They have also filed a, Memo stating that the original records relating to the grant made by the Government which was directed to be produced by this Court are missing and, therefore they cannot be, produced for the perusal of the Court. At the heading of the case, Shri C. Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader has produced a file maintained by the office of the Assistant Commissioner which does not contain any of the relevant papers relating to, the grant of land to respondent NO. At the heading of the case, Shri C. Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader has produced a file maintained by the office of the Assistant Commissioner which does not contain any of the relevant papers relating to, the grant of land to respondent NO. 3 or the application, made by the petitioner and has therefore no relevance in deciding the controversy that arises in the case. ( 4 ) IN his return respondent No. 3 has averred that he and his father are political sufferers and in recognition of that fact, Government of karnataka in its order No. RD 377 LDB 66 dated 22. 2. 1967 had granted them S. No. 477 at an upset price of Rs, 500 per acre and the entire, upsed price was deposited by them and a, title in due course irsued. His case is that on the strength of the title certificate issued to him, he was cultivating the land, but the Government without notices and providing an opportunity of hearing cancelled, the said grant by its order No. RD 237 lbd 66 dated 31. 10. 1969 which was unsuccessfully challenged, by him before this Court in W. P. No. 449 of 1972. At this stage itself, it is useful to notice that this Court while dismissing the said writ petition, observed that it would, be proper for Government to forward the application made by respondent No. 3 to, the competent authority for disposal in accordance with law. It is his case that after the disposal of the said writ petition by this Court he presented another application, before, Government setting out the earlier history of the case praying for regrant of the land tor the reasons stated in, the said application. In the absence of the, original records, it is not possible for me to say on which application,, Government has granted the land to respondent No. 3. It appears to me that having regard to all the circumstances, Government appears to have granted the land to respondent No. 3 on the later application made by him, the date of which cannot be gathered in the absence of records. On the earlier Or later application made by respondent No. 3, the Under Secretary to government, Revenue Department, in his letter No. RD 243 LGB 74 dated, 26. 2. On the earlier Or later application made by respondent No. 3, the Under Secretary to government, Revenue Department, in his letter No. RD 243 LGB 74 dated, 26. 2. 1976 addressed a letter to the Divisional Commissioner, who in tutrn forwarded copies of the same to his subordinates, a copy of which is produced by respondent No. 3 as Exhibit V conveying sanction of government for grant of the entire extent of the land in S. No. 477 to respondent No. 3. The said letter reads thus: - copy of letter No. RD 243 LGB 74 dated 26. 2. 1976 of the, Under secretary to Government, Vidhana Soudha, Revenue Department, bangalore, to the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, bangalore-1. Sub:-Regularisation of unauthorised occupation of lands in S. No. 319 of the Bellundur Khane village. Bangalore South Taluk, in favour of sri G. Ramajiah, political sufferer- 'with reference to your letter No. LND (B) CR. 28/74-75 dated 15th May, 1974, on 'the above subject, I am directed to, convey approval of Government for grant of 5 acres and 20 guntas of dry land in S. No. 319 of Bellundur village, Bangalore South Taluk, in favour of Sri G. Ramaiah, son of late R. Go,vindappa Varthur village Bangalore South Taluk, a political sufferer, at an upset price of Rs. 500/- per acre in relaxation of the Karnataka, Land Grant rules, 1969. Record accompany. Sd- (V. S. Basalingappa) Under Secretary to Govt, revenue Department. In pursuance of the Letter of Government (Extibit V) the Tahsildar, bangalore South Taluk, has issued a title certificate or saguvali chit to respondent NO. 3 on 19. 8. 1976 in which he has specifically stated that the same has been, issued by him in compliance with the directions of the government contained in its letter dated 26. 2. 1976. ( 5 ) SHRI S. J. Srinivasan, learned court for the petitioner, contended that when the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had made applications for grant of the, same land, Government was bound to consider them together and dispose cf them together considering the relative merits of both the parties. In support of his contention, Shri Srinivasan strongly relied on the ruling of this Court in M. Manje Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1978) 2 Kar. In support of his contention, Shri Srinivasan strongly relied on the ruling of this Court in M. Manje Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1978) 2 Kar. L. J. 406 ( 6 ) SHRI P. Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, who valiantly defended the case of respondent No. 3, contended that it is a case of 'continuation grant' made to; respondent No. 3 on the basis of his application made in 1967 and therefore there was no legal obligation to consider the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 together. He, also maintained that it is not a case of fresh grant made by government, but it is only a case of validating an earlier grant made as early as in the year 1967. In the very nature of things, it is necessary to consider this later contention of Shri Subba Rao first and then deal with the contention of Shri Srinivasan,. ( 7 ) EARLIER I have; noticed that the grant made by Government in the year 1967 was cancelled by Government itself in, 1969, the validity of which was upheld by this Court in W. P. NO. 449 of 1972. With the said cancellation of the grant and its affirmation by this Court, the grant made to respondent NO. 3 completely and legally disappeared and respondent No. 3 lost all his rights in the earlier grant made, in his favour. When the earlier grant itself stood cancelled, the, question of treating it as a continuation grant or validating the said grant will not necessarily arise. In any evenlt Government itself in its order dated 26. 2. 1976 has treated the case as one of making a, fresh grant to respondent No. 3. In there circumstances, the contention, urged by Shri Subba, Rao that it not a case of a fresh grant, but a continuation grant or invalidation of an earlier grant cannot be upheld and I reject the same ( 8 ) SHRI Subba Rap next contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the grant made to respondent No. 3. In support of this contention Shri Subba Rao relied on his contention that it is a case of 'continuation grant or revalidation of an earlier grant and thqrefore the question of considering the application made by the petitioner did not arise before Government for which reason he has no locus tandi to challenge the grant made to respondent No. 3. ( 9 ) EARLIER I have rejected, the contention of Shri Subba Rao that the grant made to respondent NO. 3 on 26-2. 1976 is a continuation granjt or a revalidation of an earlier grant. I have also found that as on the day government made its grant, the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were pending before it and it had not considered the application made by the petitioner. As the application made by the petitioner has not been considered and virtually stands rejected by the grant made to respondent No. 3, it necessarily follows that the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the, grant made to him and ask this Court tp direct Government to consider the applications together. For these rearons, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in, the contention f shri Subba, Rao that the petitioner has n locus standi to challenge the grant made to respondent No. 3. ( 10 ) THE assertion of the petitioner that he has made his application for grant of land on 15. 9. 1975 before Government has not been denied by government. Even respondent NO. 3 in his return does not deny the assrertion of the petitioner that he had made his application for grant of land in S. No. 477 on 15. 9. 1975. In the absence of a denial of this allegation made by the petitioner by the respondents, this Court has necessarily to accept the said allegation and examine his cafe on that footing. Along with his petition, the petitioner has produced a certified copy of the application presented by him before, Government issuod by the Special Tahsildar for Land Reforms, Bangalore, South taluk, which is marked as Exhibit C. Lastly, in spite, of a specific direction issued by this Court to produce the records, Government has failed to produce the records on the ground that the records are missing. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner had made an application before Government on 15. 9. 1975 for grant of land in S. No. 477 and that the same was pending before it as on the date it considered and, granted the application made by respondent NO. 3. ( 11 ) FROM a reading of the order of Gqvernment as also by its later communication issued on 8/ 15. 3. 1979, it is clear that Government has not considered the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 together. The Rules in specific and express terms do not say that when more than one person files an application fo-r grant of one and, the same land they should be considered together. An examinatiqn of all the rules clearly indicate, that when there is more than one applicaition for grant of one and the same land, the competent Authority has necessarily to consider all the applications together and dispose] of them together Such a course if not Adopted will result in non-cqnsideration of the case of an eligible applicant and rejection of his application which would result in failure of justice to the person whose application is not considered by the authority. Law apart, failure to consider the applications together when the applications are for grant of one and the same land, is not in the interest of justice. Fair and full justice cannot be meted qut by an authority if applications made for grant of one and the same land by more than one person are not considered together. In cases arising under the Inams Abolition Aqt and various other Acts, this Court has consistently taken the view that when there is more than one application made in respect of a land for one and the same relief, all the applications made will have to be necessarily considered togther and justice; done to all the parties. In cases arising under the Inams Abolition Aqt and various other Acts, this Court has consistently taken the view that when there is more than one application made in respect of a land for one and the same relief, all the applications made will have to be necessarily considered togther and justice; done to all the parties. In my view the principles enunciated by this Court in dealing with the applications, for grant of occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act, Land Reforms act, should be equally made applicable to the consideration of applications made by more than one person for grant of one and the same land, under the Rulea As the Government has not considered the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for one and the same land, it necessarily follows that the order granting the land to respondent No. 3 and the saguvali chit issued thereto to respondent No. 3 are liable do be quashed and a mandamus issued to consider their applications together. ( 12 ) IN its order dated 26. 2. 1976, Government has stated that the land is granted to respondent No. 3 on the ground that he is a political sufferer which fact is seriously disputed by the petitioner. He has asserted; that respondent No. 3 is a permanent employee in the H. A. L and is not a bona fide cultivator. At the hearing of the, case, Shri Subba Rao did not dispute that respondent No. 3 if a permanent employee in the H. A. L. But he contended that respondent NO. 3 is ai political sufferer and is a bonafide cultivator and was therefore entitled for the grant of land whether respondent No. 3 is eligible and entitled, for the grant is a matter that has to be necessarily decided by Government or such Other competent authority having regard to the fact that he is a permanent employee in H. A. L. ( 13 ) SHRI Subba Rao lastly contended that Government made the grant in favour of respondent NO. 3 exercising the power conferred, on it by rule 27 of the, Rules and the same is in conformity with the said Rule and there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the grant made to respondent No. 3. ( 14 ) A reading of the order of Government made on, 26. 2. 3 exercising the power conferred, on it by rule 27 of the, Rules and the same is in conformity with the said Rule and there is no warrant for this Court to interfere with the grant made to respondent No. 3. ( 14 ) A reading of the order of Government made on, 26. 2. 1976 which has been reproduced, earlier, shows that Government has not found that it was just and; reasonable to relax any of the provisions of the Rules, and had not recorded reasons for relaxation of the Rules. Rule 27 of the rules empowers Government to relax the Rules only if it finds that it is just and reasonable to relax the Rules and record its reasons for such relaxation. In its Order, Government has not found that it was just and reasonable to relax the Rules and it had, not recorded, reasons for such relaxation except starting that respondent No. 3 was a political sufferer which is also disputed, by the petitioner. In this connection, Shri srinivasan submitted that even though respondent No. 3 is a political sufferer, he is not entitled for the entire extent of land under the, Rules. In my opinion the order made by Government is also violative of Rule 27 of the Rules. ( 15 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I quash the order NO. RD 243 LGB 74 dated 26-2-1976 of the Government (Exhibit V) and the endorsement NO. RD 496 LGB 78 dated, 8115th March, 1979 (Exhibit D) and the, certificate of grant (saguvali chit) issued) by the Tahsildar on 19. 8-1976 (Exhibit) VI) and direct Government by issue of a writ in, the nature of mandamus to consider and dispose of the applications made by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 together in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. But, I make it clear that it is open to the Government if it so decides to forward the applications made by the petitioner and respondent, No. 3 and any other application pending before it made by any other person, for the grant of land in S. No/477 of Amani Ballandur Khane village to such, authority that is competent to consider and, dispose Of all those applications under the Karntaka, Land Grant Rules, 1969. ( 16 ) RULE issued is made, absolute. ( 16 ) RULE issued is made, absolute. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .