K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH these petitions are posted for orders, having regard to the order dated 19-7-1989, the same are heard for final disposal. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed the statement of objections. Learned Government Pleader has produced the records. The official from the department is also present to give instructions to Learned Government Pleader. ( 2 ) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the notifications dated 17-6-1986 bearing No. QLS 64 NTN/86-87 (Annexure-C) and QLS 64 NTN/86-87 dated 17-6-1986 (Annexure-D) issued by the first respondent granting a quarry lease for a period of five years to the petitioner in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. No. 65 of Bukkasagara Village, Gubbi Taluk, tumkur District and similarly granting a quarry lease for a period of five years in an area of 1 acre comprised in Sy. No. 81 of the same village in favour of the second respondent respectively. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that he filed an application on 30-1-1985 seeking a quarry lease in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 of Bukkasagara village. Similarly, the second respondent filed an application for grant of quarry lease in an area of a 1 acre comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 of the same village; that the application of the petitioner was processed and the Assistant Geologist inspected the area sought for by the petitioner and he made a recommendation on 26-4-1985 alongwith a sketch for grant of an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65 of Bukkasagara Village. Similarly, the application of the second respondent was also processed and an inspection was made and the very same area comprised in Sy. No. 81 was recommended for grant of quarry lease. It is submitted that after the Assistant Geologist made a report on inspection of the area, the petitioner realised that he had wrongly sought for grant of quarry lease in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 whereas he ought to have sought for an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. Nos. 60 and 61 whereas he ought to have sought for an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65; therefore, he made an application on 25-6-1985 seeking amendment to the application and to treat the same as the one filed for seeking quarry lease in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has not stated anything in the petition about the amendment sought for by the second respondent to his application on 10-5-1985. However, the records produced by the learned Government pleader and the statement of objections filed by the first respondent make it clear that the second respondent filed an application on 10-5-1985 seeking an amendment to his application dated 4-5-1985; that the area sought for in that application should be treated as the one sought in the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 81 and 65. The first respondent has granted quarry lease under Annexure-C in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. No. 65 to the petitioner and an area of 1 acre comprised in Sy. No. 81 to the second respondent. ( 5 ) NOW the point for consideration is whether the grant of quarry lease made in favour of the second respondent is valid in law. ( 6 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that as he had filed an application on 30-1-1985 and whereas the second respondent filed similar application on 4-5-1985 under Rule 7 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), he was entitled to a preference. Therefore, the area granted to the second respondent ought to have been granted to him as he was a prior applicant. It is not possible to accept this contention. It is a case in which both the applicants have tried to change the area in respect of which they sought for quarry lease. The facts stated above make it clear that the petitioner sought for 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 whereas the second respondent sought for a quarry lease comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 only. Both of them sought for a change and consequently, they sought for amendment to their applications. The petitioner sought for amendment to his application on 25-6-1985 claiming 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. Nos. Nos. 60 and 61 whereas the second respondent sought for a quarry lease comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 only. Both of them sought for a change and consequently, they sought for amendment to their applications. The petitioner sought for amendment to his application on 25-6-1985 claiming 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65 instead of 60 and 61 and whereas the second respondent sought for amendment to his application on 10-5-1985 seeking a quarry lease for 1 acre comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65 instead of 60 and 61. Thus the second respondent amended his application long prior to the petitioner seeking to amend his application. The further question that arises for consideration is whether this amendment sought for by the petitioner and the second respondent should be construed as dating back to the date of their original applications. It is not possible to hold that in a matter like this the amendment sought for by the applicants dates back to the date of their original applications. Such an interpretation will not only create a further complication but will also deprive a third party's right which would have accrued between the date of original application and the application seeking amendment. To test the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, let us refer to an illustration. As in the instant case, suppose a person by name "a" seeks for a quarry lease in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas on 30-1-1985 in sy. Nos. 60 and 61 and applies for amendment of the application on 25-6-1985 to change the area comprised in Sy. Nos. 60 and 61 to the area comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65. After 30-1-1985 and before 25-6-1985, a third party makes an application seeking a quarry lease in an area of 1 acre 20 guntas comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65. If the application of "a" seeking amendment to the original application is treated as dating back to the date of the original application, the third party who has filed the application prior to the filing of the application seeking amendment, and has sought for a quarry lease in respect of the very same area comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65, cannot be deprived of his right because he would be the first applicant to seek quarry lease to such an area. Nos. 81 and 65, cannot be deprived of his right because he would be the first applicant to seek quarry lease to such an area. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted; because the change in respect of the area comprised in sy. Nos. 81 and 65 as sought for by way of an application for amendment cannot at all, in a case where Rule of preference is determined on the basis of first come first served, be treated as dating back to the date of original application. The Rules embody the rule of preference on the basis of the date of application, as such acceptance of the contention of the petitioner would lead to depriving the right of a third party as pointed out above. Hence the contention of the petitioner is rejected. Consequently it follows that the second respondent becomes the prior applicant for a quarry lease for an area comprised in Sy. Nos. 81 and 65 and the petitioner becomes the subsequent applicant. Hence the grant of a mining lease made in favour of the second respondent cannot be held to suffer from an infirmity as Rule 7 is attracted and the second respondent is entitled to priority in preference to the petitioner. Accordingly, point raised for consideration is answered in the affirmative. ( 7 ) IT is however, contended that the second respondent is an unauthorised occupant and further in the statement of objections, the first respondent has stated that the second respondent is also entitled to grant of the lease under Rule 7 (2) of the Rules. As far as unauthorised occupation by Respondent no. 2 is concerned, the first respondent does not accept it. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Writ petition dismissd. --- *** --- .