M. RAMAKRISHNA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a public litigation writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, in which the petitioners have challenged the action taken by the respondents and have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3: (1) not to convert the gomal land and form sites in sy. No. 19 at bidalota village, holuvanahalli hobli, koratagere taluk, measuring 30 acres 19 guntas and to grant such other relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice. The brief facts of the case are as follows : sy. No. 19 of bidalota village measures about 30 acres 19 guntas. It is stated that there is a large number of population in the village bidalota with a large number of cattle. The land in question was earmarked as gomal to wit, to graze the cattle of the village. To demonstrate this, index of lands, Annexure-A is produced, wherein it is mentioned that the competent authority by its order dated 24. 4. 1947 in proceedings No. 493-168/46-47 reserved this land with a gokatte to be made use of by the villagers for grazing their cattle. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the state government under the scheme known as "ashraya" launched in the name of late suit. Indira gandhi distributed hakpatras in the names of several persons in the village in respect of sites to be formed in the land is question and that, according to them, if the land is converted into house sites, the very purpose for which it was reserved would be defeated. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the Provisions of Section 71 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 ('the act' for short) read with Rule 97 (4) of the rules, framed thereunder. He placed reliance upon two decisions of this court in support of the writ petition : 1. 1976 (1) kar. L. j. 380, Manjunatha v State of Karnataka; 2. In Javare Gowda v Divisional Commissioner, W. P. No. 2708/1974, disposed on 28-6-1976. He placed reliance upon two decisions of this court in support of the writ petition : 1. 1976 (1) kar. L. j. 380, Manjunatha v State of Karnataka; 2. In Javare Gowda v Divisional Commissioner, W. P. No. 2708/1974, disposed on 28-6-1976. ( 4 ) SRI Thimme Gowda, learned high court government pleader, appearing for the respondents, however submits that in the instant case, the deputy commissioner, first respondent, has passed an order on 15-11-1991 directing 25 acres of land out of 30 acres 19 guntas in sy. No. 19 to be converted into house sites and distributed to the needy people in pursuance of the direction given by the government under the scheme "ashraya". The submission of high court government pleader is that the land in question having been released to the extent of 25 acres in exercise of power under Section 71 of the Karnataka land revenue act read with Rule 97 (4) of the rules framed thereunder, the order of the deputy commissioner is perfectly justified and therefore the villagers have no right to challenge the said order. ( 5 ) ANOTHER submission of the learned high court government pleader is that pursuant to the order of the deputy commissioner, the respondents 4 and 5 prepared a list of houseless persons numbering 273 and,a site plant to form about 276 sites out of the said land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents is illegal or calls for interference. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival -contentions urged in this petition, it is better to refer to Section 71 of the act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the action taken by the respondents is illegal or calls for interference. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival -contentions urged in this petition, it is better to refer to Section 71 of the act. It reads :"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 proceeding 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 or portions of a village, for free pasturage for the village cattle, 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". ( 7 ) THERE fore, in view of the powers conferred upon the deputy commissioner, under this Section, the deputy commissioner, subject to the general order of the state government, may set apart lands for free pasturage for the village cattle, for forest reserves or for any other public purpose. But there is one specific injunction provided in this Section, that once lands assigned for specific purpose shall not be otherwise used without the permission of the deputy commissioner. ( 8 ) THERE fore, the deputy commissioner is competent to deviate the user of the land provided if there is reason to do so. Section 72 deals with the Regulation of the use of pasturage: it reads :"regulation of use of pasturage the right of grazing on free pasturage lands shall extend only to the cattle of the village or villages to which such lands belong or have been assigned, and shall be regulated by rules or orders made generally or in any particular instance, by the state government. The decision of the deputy commissioner ir any case of dispute as to the said right of grazing shall be final". The decision of the deputy commissioner ir any case of dispute as to the said right of grazing shall be final". ( 9 ) THIS Section provides for a right of grazing on free pasturage lands only to the cattle of village/s to which such lands have been earmarked or assigned subject to further Regulation by the rules or Regulation to be made by the state government. In this connection also, the decision of the deputy commissioner is final. ( 10 ) RULE 97 (1) clearly provides for free pastuarage. It reads :"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. ** ** ** ** ** ** (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. (whether after haying taken all relevant circumstances into consideration, he is of the opinion that the extent of free pasturage may be reduced below the prescribed limit, he may after recording reasons therefor, so reduce the extent : provided that no such permission shall be necessary where the reduction below the prescribed limit is for the purpose of : (i) distribution of house sites to the siteless person; and (ii) grant of land to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, for agricultural purposes; who are ordinarily residents of such village". Sub-rule (4) confers necessary powers upon the deputy commissioner of the district to determine the extent of the land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village. He has also power to reduce the extent of land in this behalf depending upon the number of cattle heads using the same. While doing so, he shall record reasons to do so. ( 11 ) THERE fore, it is not as though these matters are left to the discretion of the authorities without regulation. He has also power to reduce the extent of land in this behalf depending upon the number of cattle heads using the same. While doing so, he shall record reasons to do so. ( 11 ) THERE fore, it is not as though these matters are left to the discretion of the authorities without regulation. On the other hand, the right of the authorities are specifically regulated with limitations. ( 12 ) THERE fore, the question is whether, in the instant case, the deputy commissioner was right or was within his power to pass the order on 15-11-1991 directing to deviate the user of 25 acres of the land out of 30 acres in sy. No. 19 of the said village. Indeed, in the said Order, he has specifically stated that the land in question will be used for the purpose of distribution of the house sites among the houseless persons. ( 13 ) THE division bench of this court in Manjunatha v State of Karnataka, considered sections 71 and 72 read with Rule 97 (4) of the rules, having regard to the facts and circumstances arose there and held as follows :"before granting any part of the gomal land for cultivation the deputy commissioner should under Rule 97 (4) make a determination regarding the surplus of the gomal, after notice to the villagers. Though it may not be practicable to give individual notices to all the villagers having the right of free pasturage in gomal lands, the revenue authorities can give public notice by affixing a copy of such notice in the village chavadi, or by beat of tom tom or by publication in a newspaper or in any other reasonable manner. Hearing of objections of such persons to the proposed grant need not necessarily be personal or oral hearing. Ascertainment of the view of the villagers in a mahazar conducted by the revenue authorities cannot take the place of notice to persons in the village and consideration of their objections. The state government while it functions as a quasi-judicial authority is bound to follow the rulings of the high court". Ascertainment of the view of the villagers in a mahazar conducted by the revenue authorities cannot take the place of notice to persons in the village and consideration of their objections. The state government while it functions as a quasi-judicial authority is bound to follow the rulings of the high court". ( 14 ) BEFORE directing deviation of 25 acres of land out of 30 acres, the deputy commissioner should have considered whether any land was available for the purpose for which deviation was required having regard to the extent of land with reference to the number of cattle for whom the land was earmarked as far back as on 24-4-1947. Further, ofcourse, it is not practically impossible to provide an opportunity to each and every villager of being heard, however, as observed, by this court, a notice of proposed action should have been given to the villagers, in general in the maiuicr stated above. That has not been done in the instant case. ( 15 ) AGAIN when there are rulings of this court directly on this question, the state government while functioning as quasi-judicial authority ought to have directed the deputy commissioner or the other officer to follow the procedural requirement in the light of the rulings of this court. In the instant case, even that has not been done. ( 16 ) LASTLY in Javare Gowda v Divisional Commissioner, in W. P. No. 2708/1974, disposed on 28-6-1976, jagannatha shetty, as he then was, also held the same while construing Rule 97 (4) as follows : "that Rule imposes limitation on the power of the deputy commissioner to reduce the extent of free pasturage". As observed in javare gowda's case, even after the deputy commissioner passes an Order, reducing the extent of pasturage, he must obtain the approval of the divisional commissioner for appropriation. ( 17 ) IN the scheme of the Provisions of sections 71 and 72 read with Rule 97 (4) of the rules, I am of the opinion that the deputy commissioner having failed to follow the mandatory requirements of the law in passing the order on 15-11-1991, deviating 25 acres of the land out of the reserved gomal land, that order cannot be sustained. He has failed not only to comply with the requirements of those Provisions, but also to follow the rulings of this court inasmuch as there is no notice issued to the villagers before passing the orders referred to above. In that view the further action taken by the respondents 4 and 5 in distribution of the sites out of the said land is illegal. Such action cannot be sustained. ( 18 ) IN the result, I make the following order :the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus shall be issued to the respondents not to convert the gomal land to form house sites in sy. No. 19 at bidalota village, holuvanahalli hobli, koratagere taluk, as contemplated by the order of the deputy commissioner made on 15-11-1991. However, it is open to the authorities concerned to take action to provide for house sites for the houseless rural people, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above, under the scheme known as 'ashraya', if such action does not affect the right of the villagers. Ordered accordingly. Sri Thimme Gowda learned high court government pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 1 to 5 within two weeks. --- *** --- .