S. G. DODDAKALE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) ON preliminary hearing the ground on which the impugned eviction notice issued under S. 94 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is challenged is that, by virtue of his unauthorised possession he has raised plantation crop and application filed for grant is pending consideration, even before the disposal of the application; if evicted, he would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice. ( 2 ) SRI P. Vishwanatha Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that unless his application for grant is disposed of, the authorities have no jurisdiction to evict him or to issue the impugned order. If S. 94-A were in force, probably it had relevance, because after eviction, question of regularisation will not arise. The court may be right if it directed the authorities to defer eviction proceedings pending disposal of the application for grant. After the deletion of S. 94-A no person in unauthorised possession can claim, as of right, regularisation. Hence, I find nothing wrong in the impugned notice. S. 94 (3) provides for eviction of unauthorised occupants. So also S. 104 provides for summary eviction of person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land belonging to the Government notwithstanding the provisions contained in Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1961. ( 3 ) IT is not the case of Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty that he is in lawful possession of the property. Admittedly, the land belongs to the Government in respect of which he has made his claim for grant. Under R. 3 of the Land Grant Rules, the land available for grant has to be notified by the concerned authorities. Normally, the person eligible under the Rule can claim a grant in his favour. Till then, nobody has got a right to claim the property of the Government. In this context, it is also necessary to refer R. 26 of the Land grant Rules which states that nothing contained in these Rules shall be deemed to confer on any person any right to the grant of the land. Mere filing of an application cannot act as a shield for protection of unauthorised possession. In this context, it is also necessary to refer R. 26 of the Land grant Rules which states that nothing contained in these Rules shall be deemed to confer on any person any right to the grant of the land. Mere filing of an application cannot act as a shield for protection of unauthorised possession. In the absence of any right to continue in possession of the property, the authorities were well within their rights in ordering eviction and i find no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) SRI P. Vishwanatha Shetty relying on a decision of this Court in WP No. 1394 of 1981 (1) submitted that pending disposal of his application for grant no eviction can be ordered. If this contention is accepted, S. 94 would virtually become nugatory. The scope and ambit of S. 94 and the object with which S. 94-A was deleted has not been adverted to in the said decision. No principles of law is enunciated except observing that it is fair to defer eviction proceedings. If the decision is understood in the sense in which Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty urges to accept, then it would only mean that the disposal of the application becomes a condition precedent for giving effect to S. 94. That is not the purport of a plain reading of S, 94. The Court cannot read, something into the section and make it impossible to implement it. The grant of land and eviction proceeding are independent proceedings and operate in different fields. Hence, I find no substance in this contention also, ( 5 ) LASTLY, he has contended that the third respondent is pressurising the authorities to make a grant in favour of one siddaiah, her brother, who is not a party to this writ petition. In the course of the argument he produced a letter dated 3-7-1979 addressed by the third respondent to one Thammaiah who, according to Sri P. Vishwanatha Shetty, is the Tahsildar of the Taluk, requesting him to process the darkhast records immediately. As already indicated, unless the land is notified under R, 3 of the Land Grant Rules, the land can be granted neither to the petitioner nor to Siddaiah. As already indicated, unless the land is notified under R, 3 of the Land Grant Rules, the land can be granted neither to the petitioner nor to Siddaiah. In case if it is already notified for grant he can only make a grievance of mala fides as and when the grant is made in favour of Siddaiah. At this stage, I cannot assume that the authorities would yield to the request of the third respondent and presumptions on my part to assume that grant would be made, when no action is taken for the last 2 years. Substantial remedy by way of an appeal and revision is provided under the Act. There is no merit in this case, ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is rejected at the stage of preliminary hearing. --- *** --- .