P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, is a Village Panchayat. ( 2 ) IN this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the orders dated 11th of July, 1997 and 6th of September, 1997, copies of which have been produced as Annexures-E and F issued by the first respondent-State and the third respondent-Deputy Commissioner respectively. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-Panchayat consists of Ugargol, Harlapur and Yellammana Tanda villages. It is claimed that it is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to look after general welfare of the inhabitants of the village and also to promote breeding of cattle, poultry and other livestock and it is one of the functions of the panchayat to maintain grazing lands and to prevent its unauthorised alienation and use. As can be seen from the avermente made in the petition, there was a gomal land measuring 329 acres 25 guntas in Block no. 992; 654 acres 29 guntas in Block No. 993; 615 acres in Block No. 953; and 286 acres 22 guntas in Block No. 956, and in all measuring 1,940 acres 35 guntas, situated at Ugargol village. According to the petitioner, out of the said lands, land measuring about 52 acres were granted to certain landless persons; in an area of about 10 acres, a grave yard has been formed; and the Forest Department is in occupation of about 300 acres thus leaving only 1,578 acres 35 guntas of gomal land in ugargol Village. ( 4 ) IN this petition, as observed by me earlier, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the orders Annexures-E and F, whereby respondents 1 and 3 have, in the purported exercise of the power conferred on them under Rule 97 (4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Rules"), dereserved the gomal land measuring 1,097 acres situated at Ugargol village and reserved the same for the purpose of the 5th respondent-Institution in exercise of the power conferred under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act" ). According to the petitioner, the impugned orders seriously affect the rights of the villagers; and if the impugned orders are given effect to, the villagers will be deprived of their right to graze their cattle on the gomal land, which is absolutely required by the villages. It is also asserted in the petition that the lands situated at Ugargol and Harlapur villages are all dry lands and the villagers had to depend upon the rain for cultivating their lands and that being the position, the villagers have taken up Dairy Farming and poultry Farming as their main profession and in that regard, they foster cattle and breed them. It is also stated in the petition that as per the 1990 Census, there were 7,723 cattle in Ugargol and Harlapur villages and 820 catties in Yellammana Tanda village; and since 1990, the cattle strength has increased considerably. According to the petitioner, the cattle of the village require more than an area of 3,000 acres as gomal land according to the norms fixed under Rule 97 of the Rules having regard to the cattle strength in the villages; and if the impugned orders are given effect to, the villagers will have hardly about 500 acres. The petitioners have also stated that the Village Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 8th August, 1997 requesting the respondents to withdraw the impugned orders. It is their further case that similar resolution has been passed by the Co-operative Society requesting the respondents to withdraw the impugned orders. It is also stated that since the Authorities have not withdrawn the impugned orders, there was wide-spread protest by the villagers and a 'bundh' was also observed by the villagers on 20th of October, 1997. It is also the case of the petitioner that the land in question has been dereserved from gomal and has been reserved for the purpose of the 5th respondent just to oblige Sri g. M. Mamoni, Deputy Speaker of Vidhana Sabha, as he happens to be the Chairman of the 5th respondent-Institution. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 have filed their objections and disputed the claim of the petitioner that on account of the impugned orders, the villagers are put to any difficulty or hardship. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 have filed their objections and disputed the claim of the petitioner that on account of the impugned orders, the villagers are put to any difficulty or hardship. It is the case of respondents 1 to 4 that the land in question are barren rocky land, which is totally unfit for grazing any cattle and, therefore, on account of the impugned orders, the villagers are not put to any hardship. It is the further stand of respondents 1 to 4 that the land in question being the government land, the first respondent being the State and owner of the said land, has passed the impugned order at Annexure-E dereserving the said land from gomal and reserving the same for the purpose of the 5th respondent-Institution as the land is required for public purpose. It is the case of the respondents that the 5th respondent is an Institution incorporated under the provisions of the Renuka Yellamma Devasthana act and it functions through the Committee nominated by the first respondent of which the Deputy Commissioner of the District is the chairman. In the additional statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, the details of the cattle strength as per the 1990 Census and also gomal land available in Ugargol and other neighbouring villagers, which is a part of the petitioner-Panchayat, are given. It is useful to refer to paragraph 5 of the additional Statement of Objections, which reads as hereunder: "the total cattle in the Ugargol Village is 5,117 as per the 1990 cattle census. The total Gomal lands available in Ugargol village and the adjoining villages as per Record of Rights annexed herewith are as follows: ( 21 ) IN the light of my above conclusion, I find it unnecessary to examine the last contention of Sri Byadgi and also the details of the land and the cattle strength in the village. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order Annexure-E, dated 11th of July, 1997 passed by the first respondent-State and also the order Annexure-F, dated 6th of September, 1997 passed by the third respondent-Deputy commissioner are hereby quashed. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order Annexure-E, dated 11th of July, 1997 passed by the first respondent-State and also the order Annexure-F, dated 6th of September, 1997 passed by the third respondent-Deputy commissioner are hereby quashed. However, it is needless to observe that the Deputy Commissioner is entitled to take fresh decision in the matter, if he so desires, in the light of the observations made in this order and in strict compliance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 of the Rules and in accordance with law. ( 23 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs. ( 24 ) IN terms stated above, this petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule issued is made absolute. ( 25 ) SRI B. E. Kotian, learned Government Advocate, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .