HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition the point to be considered is the interpretation of Sections 69 and 71 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, read with rule 97 (4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue rules, 1965, coupled with the Circular issued by the Government in No. RD. 76 LGP 88 dated 14-10-1988 at Anncxurc-A and the subsequent modified circular dated 27-12-1989. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who is the resident of Kaup village of Dakshina Kannada District has filed this petition for and on behalf of himself and other villagers seeking for the following reliefs: (a) declare the Circular dated 27-12-1989 in No. RD 76. LGP. 88 issued by the respondent under Annexureb as ultra vires the provisions of the constitution of India and provisions of the land Revenue Act of 1964 and the rules framed thereunder; (b) to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent not to give effect to the circular under Annexure-B; (c) to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to direct all its subordinate officers not to act upon circular 'b', and; (d) pass such other appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice. " the petitioner contended that by Circular at annexure-B, the Government intended to take away the powers conferred on the Deputy Commissioner of the district in respect of Gomal lands which are admittedly the properties of the mandal Panchayat. By such circular the right of all the villagers to graze their cattle in the said gomal land will be deprived of. Thus, indirectly it, affecting the rights of the villagers which they are using the public property. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the circular at Annexure-B is in direct contravention of Sections 69 and 71 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows: "section 69-Disposal of lands or other property belonging to State Government under Section 67. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the circular at Annexure-B is in direct contravention of Sections 69 and 71 of the Act. Section 69 of the Act reads as follows: "section 69-Disposal of lands or other property belonging to State Government under Section 67. Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the State Government, the divisional Commissioner, the Deputy commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner incharge of a Taluk or Taluks and the tahsildar, may dispose of land or other property belonging to the State Government under Section 67 or otherwise, for purposes of agriculture, industry or any public utility and subject to the provisions of chapter XII for the construction of buildings. " section 71 of the Act reads as follows: "section 71. Lands may be assigned for special purposes and when assigned, shall not be otherwise used without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. Subject to the general orders of the State Government, survey Officers, whilst survey operations are proceedings under this Act, and at any other time, the Deputy Commissioner, may set apart lands, which are the property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any person or aggregate of persons in any village OF portions of a village, for forest reserves or for any other public purpose; and lands assigned specially for any such purpose shall not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Deputy commissioner, and in the disposal of lands under Section 69 due regard shall be had to all such special assignments. " rule 97 of the Rules reads as follows: "rule 97. Providing free pasturage. (1) Government land shall be set apart for free pasturage for the cattle of each village at the rate of twelve hectares for every hundred heads of cattle. Explanation:in calculation the heads of cattle for goats, sheep or calves or cow or buffalo shall be taken as equivalent to one head of cattle. (2) If there is sufficient various area in the village concerned or in the adjoining village to enable the village cattle to graze, the area to be set apart as free pasturage may be reduced correspondingly. (2) If there is sufficient various area in the village concerned or in the adjoining village to enable the village cattle to graze, the area to be set apart as free pasturage may be reduced correspondingly. (3) If there is any grazing land available in a village, or the land available falls short of the extent prescribed under sub-rule (1) the deficit may be made up by setting apart government land available in the adjacent village. (4) The Deputy Commissioner shall determine the extent of land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village. If in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner the extent of pasturage should exceed the minimum prescribed in sub-rule (1) he may so set apart such larger extent as may be necessary. If on the contrary he considers that the area already so set apart lies much larger than what is really required he may reduce it to the prescribed minimum. Where, he considers that the extent of free pasturage may be reduced below the prescribed limit, he should do so only after obtaining the prior permission of the divisional Commissioner. " ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the Circularat Annexure-B has taken away the powers of the deputy Commissioner who alone has got powers under the Act and the Rules to reduce the free pasturage or any other Government land. The powers conferred under the Act on a particular authority, according to the petitioner, cannot be taken away by the State by an executive order, as now done at Annexure-B. Thus he contends the present act of the State is quite illegal. In support of his contention, he relics upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of javaregowda v Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, reported in 1976 (2) Kar. L. J. Short Notes, Item no. 80, wherein His Lordship Jagannatha Shelly, j. , (as he then was) interpreling the scope of Rule 97 (4) of the Rules has held thus: "rule 97 (4) imposes a limitation on the power of the Deputy Commissioner to reduce the extent of free pasturage which is already below the prescribed limit He could do so only after obtaining prior permission of the Divisional Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner must make out a case for reducing free pasturage below the prescribed minimum and then obtain permission from the Divisional Commissioner for appropriation. The Deputy Commissioner must make out a case for reducing free pasturage below the prescribed minimum and then obtain permission from the Divisional Commissioner for appropriation. " the second authority which the pctilioncr relies upon is the one reported in AIR 1976, Karnataka, p. 158 (K. R. Manjunalh and Others v State of karnataka and Others), wherein it is held as follows: "though it may not be practicable to give individual notices to all the villagers having the right of free pasturage in Comal lands, the Revenue authorities can give public notice to the villagers by affixing a copy of such notice in the village chavadi, or by beat of torn torn or by publication in a newspaper having circulation in the village or in any other reasonable manner. Hearing of objections of such persons, to the proposed grant of land in the Gomal need not necessarily be a personal or oral hearing. A mahazar cannot take the place of notice to persons in the village and consideration of their objections. In the absence of such notice, there is no certainty that all persons who desire to object to the proposed grant of land in the Gomal, will know that a Mahazar will be held and that they can express their objections at such mahazar. " the third decision Sri Krishnaswamy relies upon is the one rendered by this Court in the case of b. V. Malla Reddy v State of Kamataka, ILR 1989 (1) Karnataka, P. 60, wherein it is held as follows: "the Deputy Commissioner or any other Revenue Officer delegated with the power under Section 94 of the Act is entitled to and is duty-bound under law to initiate a proceeding for eviction of unauthorised occupanls of Government land including the land reserved for gomal. Thus the use of the gomal land and management and control and eviction of unauthorised occupants of gomal lands are covered by the Act and the Rules framed thercundcr. Therefore, the State Government in the purported exercise of its executive power cannot by issuing a Circular of the nature in question interfere with the exercise of power under the Act by the Authorities to evict the unauthorised occupants. " "the decision in K. P. Manjunatha's case does not help respondents 4 to 10. It does not also lay down anything contrary to what has been stated above. " "the decision in K. P. Manjunatha's case does not help respondents 4 to 10. It does not also lay down anything contrary to what has been stated above. It also does not hold that the Stale Government can nullify the provisions of the Act and the Rules by issuing a circular in the purported exercise of its executive power. " sri S. V. Krishnaswamy conlended that the circular at Annexure-B is nothing but a clear case of usurping the powers conferred on the Deputy commissioner. As against the said contention, sri Kantharaj, learned Governmenl Pleader submils lhal none of the authorities relied upon by sri Krishnaswamy are helpful to him to challenge the circular at Annexurc-B. According to him, under Sections 69 and 71 of the Act and Rule 97 (4) of the Rules, ihe Government has got powers to issue such circular. Under similar circumstances, according to him, this Court has taken a view in the case of A. G. Basavarajappa and Others v State of Kamataka and Others, reported in 1989 (1) Kar. L. J. P. 101, wherein inlerpreling the scope of Rule 95 (4) this Court held that such circulars are within the competency of the Government. After hearing both the sides and on going through the authorities cited by the petitioner and the respondent, I am of the view that neither the circular at Anncxureb in any way illegal nor the authorities relied upon by Sri krishnaswamy are helpful to him or the circular at Anncxure B is it a clear transgression of the principles laid down in all the three decisions. ( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that under Sections 69 and 71 of the Act and Rule 97 (4) of the Rules, it is only the Deputy Commissioner who has got powers to reduce the extent of free pasturage. It is also not in dispute that the land which is shown as free pasturage is the one vested in the government. Its nature of the use etc; is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government. It is nobody's case that the land which is under dispute is not a public property. Now the question for consideration is whether the circular at anncxurc-B can be issued by the Government. Its nature of the use etc; is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government. It is nobody's case that the land which is under dispute is not a public property. Now the question for consideration is whether the circular at anncxurc-B can be issued by the Government. A perusal of Annexurc-B makes it clear that nowhere it is said or directed the Deputy commissioner either to grant land or to evict a person or to dispense with issuing of a notice or hearing of objection. What the Government did at annexure-B was only laid down the guidelines. Mere guidelines detailed by the Government cannot be construed as an executive act interfering in the powers of the Deputy Commissioner conferred under the provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder. ( 6 ) AS mentioned earlier, the authorities which Sri Krishnaswamy relics upon, arc not applicable to the case on hand. In the first case what this Court said was the Deputy commissioner while exercising powers under Rule 97 straightaway cannot sanction the land unless he obtains pair sanction of the Divisional Commissioner. As such powers were conferred in the divisional Commissioner regarding grant of land of free pasturage nature. The second authority (a Division Bench decision of this Court) relied upon by the petitioner is also nowhere helpful to the case of the petitioner. That was a case where in respect of Gomal land whether a notice has to be issued to each and every villager and every villager is to be heard in the matter or it will be sufficient if a notice is affixed to the village chavadi. While stressing the importance of issuing of a notice to the villagers, taking into consideration the impracticability of serving notice to each and every villagers, the Division Bench has said that it is sufficient if a notice is affixed on the Notice Board of the Village Panchayat or Village Chavadi. The third case which Sri krishnaswamy relies upon is again not helpful to him. That was a case where the Court had to consider whether an order of eviction can be passed or regularisation be ordered by the government in spite of powers given to the deputy Commissioner under the Act, then this court said that the Government by exercising its executive order cannot take away the powers of the authorities concerned in the matter of issuing eviction order. Whereas the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader, namely, 1989 (1) Kar. L. J. , P. 101 (A. G. Basavarajappa and Others v State of Kamataka and Others) is nearer to the issue involved. In the said case, under similar circumstances, this Court held as follows: "it is not the case of the petitioners that the proposed reduction of the Gomal land or the grant of lands to the unauthorised landless occupants is prohibited by law. All that the petitioners complain is that the reduction of the total extent of Gomal reserve would deprive the villagers of their rights to use Gomal land for grazing purpose or their cattle. It is no doubt true that in every village, under a Governmental policy, which has assumed the form of Legislative measure, lands are earmarked for the purpose of grazing of cattle and such lands are not meant to be given away under Darkast either to landless persons or to u nauthorised landless occupants. However, if the Statute itself provides for exceptions either in the nature of the reduction of the gomal land or in the nature of legitimisation of unauthorised occupancy, so long as the unauthorised occupants are termed as landless, though in fact, the cattle are likely to suffer for want of sufficient pasturage. With justifiable sympathy, I am prompted to observe that law has accorded primacy to the articulate needs of the rational animals, the landless; over the inarticulate interests of the dumb animals whose cause goes a begging. According to Rule 95 (4) of the Karnatdka land Revenue Rules, 1966, the concerned revenue authorities are competent to reduce the pasturage earmarked for the village cattle and according to the Government order dated 1st September, 1977, it is open to the authorities (Deputy Commissioners) to legitimise the unauthorised occupancy of landless agriculturists to the extent indicated in the said order. In the light of these provisions, the petitioners do not have any valid ground and much less legal right for grant of a mandamus. " ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the view that Annexure-B is most harmless and in no way made an attempt to interfere in the powers of the authorities concerned. What the circular said was while making an order of grant the authority shall take into consideration the priority and preference as laid down in the said circular. What the circular said was while making an order of grant the authority shall take into consideration the priority and preference as laid down in the said circular. Merely because such guidelines are laid down that cannot be mistaken by any villagers that the Government took away the powers of the hierarchy of the officers of the Revenue department who arc authorised to grant land after divesting. Hence, according to me, the complaint of the petitioner is most misconceived. ( 8 ) HENCE, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .