K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26-2-1976 passed by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi and the order dated 9-11-1978 passed by the Karnataka appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 1365/1976 produced as Annexures-A and B' respectively. ( 2 ) ANNEXURE-A is an endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi dated 26-2-1976 stating that the application filed by smt. Channabasamma, the mother of the petitioner-Sri B. V. Bangarappa was rejected by the Special Deputy Commissioner, shimoga, in his No. LND (l) SR 18/72-73 dated 18-11-1975 and as such pursuant to the government Circular No. RDK 3/lgw 75 dated 26-12-1975, the proceeding for eviction would be initiated against Smt, Channabasamma. ( 3 ) IN view of the information contained in the aforesaid endorsement that the application filed by Smt. Channabasamma was rejected on 18-11-1975, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal in the name of channabasamma by the petitioner as her legal representative against the order dated 18-11-1975 passed by the Special Deputy commissioner, Shimoga in LND (l) SR 18/72-73. The appeal was also directed against the order dated 6-11-1976 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in No. LND SR 6/75-76. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal by the impugned order dated 8-11-1978 (Annexure- C) has rejected the appeal on the grounds that the appeal was preferred in the name of a dead person; therefore, it could not be allowed to be amended and that Bangarappa, the son of smt. Channabasamma is a sufficient holder. ( 5 ) SRI B. Veerabhadrappa, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following contentions: that Smt. Channabasamma and her husband Sri Veerabhadrappa and their son sri Bangarappa lost the entire lands standing in their names in the acquisition for sharavathy Project; that in respect of the lands lost by them the husband of Channabasamma (Veerabhadrappa) was granted 15 acres in S. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Hindalli village and in respect of the lands lost by the petitioner Bangarappa, he was granted 25 acres in Serial No. 1 of Hindalli village; that as far as Smt. Channabasamma was concerned, she lost in the acquisition an extent of 12. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Hindalli village and in respect of the lands lost by the petitioner Bangarappa, he was granted 25 acres in Serial No. 1 of Hindalli village; that as far as Smt. Channabasamma was concerned, she lost in the acquisition an extent of 12. 36 acres of wet land and 23 acres of dry land comprised in Serial No. 20 - 3-15 acres; Serial No. 70/2 - 2-34 acres; Serial No. 70 - 5-27 acres and Serial No. 35 - 25 guntas of Hindalli village; that as per Rule 43d of the Mvsore Land Revenue (Amendment) rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules'), the persons who lost their lands in the acquisition for any project, were entitled to the grant of equal extent of land subject to the limit prescribed in clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 43d; that though 1960 rules came to be repealed by the Mysore land Grant Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Rules'), but Rule 40 of the 1968 Rules saved the right, privilege, obligation and liability acquired or accrued or incurred under the repealed Rules; that in addition to this, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the 1968 Rules also provided for grant of land to displaced holders or displaced tenants. Thus it is contended that the right accrued to channabasamma to seek grant of the same extent of land iost by her in the acquisition for Sharavathy Project was saved in the 1968 rules; that though 1968 Rules came to be repealed by the Karnataka Land Grant rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 1969 Rules'); but the proviso to Rule 6 of the 1969 Rules exempted the lands from the operation of Rules 5 and 6 of 1969 Rules in respect of the lands reserved for displaced holders and displaced tenants affected by the government Project; that pursuant to the right accrued to Smt. Channabasamma, she made an application on 4-2-1969 for grant of an extent of 9 acres comprised in Serial No. 26. of Malligenahalli village, on the basis of that application, records were built up and recommendation was made for grant of land by the Assistant Commissioner but the special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 18-11-1975 dismissed the said application; that the Tribunal committed an error in applying one of the restrictions imposed by Rule 4 of the 1969 Rules; that an applicant for grant of land should not be a sufficient holder. ( 6 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the State by Sri Shahapur, learned government Pleader that the right accrued to Smt. Channabasamma came to an end on her death inasmuch as no order was passed on the application filed by Smt. Channabasamma during her life time. Hence the petitioner though the son of channabasamma could not inherit or succeed to any interest of Channabasamma as no right or interest of Channabasamma in the proceeding subsisted on her death; that at any rate, he did not come on record as the legal representative of Channabasamma, but he tried to pursue the matter as her power of attorney holder; that even in the appe ' also, no application to bring the legal representative of Channabasamma was filed before the Tribunal; that as per the records, bangarappa has now become the owner of 40 acres inasmuch as 25 acres were granted to him on 2-9-1963 in Serial No. 1 of Hindalli village and 15 acres were granted to his father Veerabhadrappa on 18-10-1960 in serial Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Hindalli village; that Veerabhadrappa has died and his son bangarappa, the petitioner, has succeeded to the estate of Veerabhadrappa as his only legal heir. Hence the petitioner in all holds 40 acres. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of land of any extent. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid contentions, the following points arise for consideration : i) Whether in law, the petitioner is entitled to prosecute the proceedings as the legal representative of the deceased Channabasamma? 2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of land as he is a sufficient holder? 3) What order? point NO. 2) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of land as he is a sufficient holder? 3) What order? point NO. 1 ( 8 ) IN this case, it cannot at all be disputed and it is also not disputed that Channabasamma lost an extent of 12 acres 36 guntas wet and 23 guntas dry land comprised in four survey numbers in the acquisition for submersion of the area for Sharavathi project. 1960 Rules were in force at that time. The 1960 Rules provided for grant of equal extent of land, lost in the acquisition, to the displaced land-holders. Of course, smt. Channabasamma did not make an application when the 1960 Rules were in force. She made an application only on 4-2-1969 when the 1968 Rules were in force. This should not make any difference because right accrued under 1960 Rules and the provisions for grant of land for displaced land holders were continued under the 1968 rules, and similar provisions are also contained in 1969 rules. Therefore, on the date when Smt. Channabasamma made an application for grant of land on the ground that she was a displaced land-holder, she was entitled to grant of land equivalent to the extent lost by her in submersion of Sharavathi Project area. The application of Channabasamma was processed, and the records were built up. The area proposed to be granted measuring an extent of 9 acres comprised in Serial No. 26 of Malligenahalli village was also identified. However, the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 18-11-1975 rejected the same without reference to the relevant Rules. He was again requested to reconsider but nevertheless he rejected the same by his another order dated 26-12-1975. This fact was intimated to Channabasamma as per annexure-A, and it was then only the petitioner came to know about the rejection of the application. In the meanwhile Smt, channabasamma died on 14-11-1974. Sri bangarappa was prosecuting the application filed by Channabasamma being the son as well as the P. A. Holder of Channabasamma. On coming to know of the order rejecting the application filed by Smt. Channabasamma, he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal showing her name and describing himself as the P. A. Holder of deceased Channabasamma. The Tribunal has rejected his request to be brought on record as the legal representative of Smt. Channa- basamma. On coming to know of the order rejecting the application filed by Smt. Channabasamma, he preferred an appeal before the Tribunal showing her name and describing himself as the P. A. Holder of deceased Channabasamma. The Tribunal has rejected his request to be brought on record as the legal representative of Smt. Channa- basamma. In the course of its order, the Tribunal has observed that the application was not supported by the affidavit of Bangarappa, though, it was filed to bring him on record as the legal representative. However, the records show that Bangarappa was permitted to prosecute the appeal as the legal representative of Smt. Channa- basamma. The cause title contained in the very order of the tribunal shows Bangarappa as the legal representative of Channa- basamma. However, it is relevant to notice that in the revenue proceedings, there is nothing like abatement. The provisions of C. P. C. relating to abatement are not made applicable. On the death of Channa- basamma, her heir namely Bangarappa was entitled to continue the proceedings. In fact, it was Bangarappa who had filed the appeal, though described himself as Power of attorney of Channabasamma. As Channabasamma had died by then, the Power of Attorney had come to an end. Therefore, filing of the appeal by Bangarappa could be considered only as Bangarappa, he was entitled to file the appeal in his own right being the son of Smt. Channabasamma. As such he was entitled to continue the proceedings. Consequently it follows that the reasoning of the Tribunal that the appeal was filed in the name of a dead person, therefore, it was incompetent cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the appeal was filed by bangarappa though described himself as the p. A. Holder. Channa- basamma had died by then. The Power of Attorney, if any, had come to an end. But as the heir and the legal representative of Channabasamma, the petitioner was entitled to file the appeal and continue the proceedings. The right accrued to Channa- basamma under the 1960 Rules was a heritable right inasmuch as the law ensured grant of equal extent of land to all those whose lands had been lost in the submersion of Sharavathi Project. It is in exercise of this right, Smt. Channabasamma had filed an application for grant of land. The proceeding was pending on the date she died. It is in exercise of this right, Smt. Channabasamma had filed an application for grant of land. The proceeding was pending on the date she died. The right ensured under 1960 Rules had been saved and continued under the 1968 and 1969 Rules. As such, in the presence of the legal representative of the deceased, the proceeding could not, in law, come to an end. Hence the petitioner was entitled to file the appeal as the legal representative, and was and is entitled to prosecute and continue the same. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO. 2 ( 9 ) THE Tribunal has failed to notice that the restriction or the condition contained in rule 4 of the 1969 Rules that an applicant should not be a sufficient holder is not applicable in the case of grant of land to displaced persons and tenants, because the criteria for grant of land to such persons are not those specified in Rule 4 of the 1969 rules. The criteria is that they should be displaced persons or tenants. Therefore, the condition that an applicant for grant of land should not be a sufficient holder is not applicable to the case of an applicant seeking grant of land on the ground that he or she lost his or her land in the acquisition by the state for public purpose. As far as 1969 rules are concerned, the proviso to Rules 6 specifically excludes operation of Rules 5 and 6 of 1969 Rules in the case of grant of land to displaced persons. The said proviso to Rule 6 of the 1969 Rules reads thus:"provided that when Government directs under Section 71 of the Act that in any particular area Government land shall be reserved for grant to displaced persons and tenants affected by any Government project, provisions of Rule 5 and 6 will not apply. "sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the 1968 Rules specifically provided that the extent of land, if any, granted to the displaced holder or displaced tenant shall not exceed the extent of land lost by such person by reason of the acquisition of land. "sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the 1968 Rules specifically provided that the extent of land, if any, granted to the displaced holder or displaced tenant shall not exceed the extent of land lost by such person by reason of the acquisition of land. It also further provided that the extent of land, if any, to be granted to a displaced holder or displaced tenant shall be such that total land held by him as owner or tenant or partly as owner or partly as tenant after such grant shall not exceed 18 standard acres. As far as Channabasamma was concerned, she had lost all her holdings. Similarly Bangarappa and his father had also lost all the lands in the acquisition for sharavathi Project. However, Bangarappa and Veerabhadrappa were granted 25 acres and 15 acres respectively in lieu of the lands they lost in the acquisition for Sharavathi project. Veerabhadrappa, the father of the petitioner, has expired. The only heir surviving is Eangarappa, the petitioner herein. Hence the holdings of Bangarappa as on today would be 40 acres. It is not clear from the records as to whether these 40 acres are dry land or wet land or partly dry and partly wet. This aspec! of the matter has to be verified by the relevant authority. It is also not known whether subsequently, Bangarappa has acquired any other land. As the law stands today, Channabasamma's application has to be dealt with in accordance with 1969 rules but without applying the restrictions contained therein except the one relating to ceiling area. The ceiling area prescribed under the 1969 Rules is as prescribed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the holdings of Sri Bangarappa after the grant should not under any circumstances exceed the ceiling area prescribed under the karnataka Land Reforms Act. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has to verify as to the present holdings of Sri Bangarappa, according to the classification made under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. If the present land holdings of Bangarappa exceed the ceiling area as prescribed under the Karnataka Land reforms Act, he will not be entitled to grant of any portion of the land. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has to verify as to the present holdings of Sri Bangarappa, according to the classification made under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. If the present land holdings of Bangarappa exceed the ceiling area as prescribed under the Karnataka Land reforms Act, he will not be entitled to grant of any portion of the land. On the contrary, if the land holdings of Sri Bangarappa fall short of the ceiling area, and that extent is not more than what is claimed by Channabasamma in Section No. 26 of malligenahalli, to that extent, he is entitled to grant of land. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of land because he is a sufficient holder. The expression 'sufficient holder' as defined in Rule 2 (15) of the 1969 rules is not applicable to the applicants seeking grant of land on the ground that they have lost their land in the acquisition for sharavathi Project or any other project by the State Government. Thus seeking grant of land either as displaced holders or displaced tenants, the only restriction applicable to such persons is the ceiling area prescribed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the tribunal produced as Annexure-C and the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 18-11-1975 and 27-12-1975 and the endorsement dt. 26-2-76 issued by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi (Annexure-A) are quashed. The matter now stands remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, shimoga with a direction to consider the application of Channabasamma, since deceased by his legal representative Sri Bangarappa, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. Sri S. B. Shahapur, learned Government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance in six weeks. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .