P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) SRI s. n. hatti, learned additional government Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents 4 to 6. ( 2 ) THE question that would arise for consideration in these petitions is as to the power of the 4th respondent-deputy commissioner to withdraw the kumki privileges enjoyed by varghadars of certain agricultural lands. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in these petitions claim that they have been enjoying kumki privileges in respect of land measuring 1 acre 89 cents out of 7 acres 55 cents in sy. No. 152/2-a1 of kariyangala village, bantwal taluk, dakshina kannada district as they are the varghadars of certain agricultural lands situated adjacent to the said lands referred to above. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioners have been enjoying kumki rights in respect of lands referred to above. The deputy commissioner in exercise of the power delegated to him by the state government under Section 195 of the Karnataka land revenue act (hereinafter referred to as the "act") passed an order dated 5th august, 1997, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E , extinguishing the kumki rights of the petitioners and others in respect of the lands referred to above. The correctness of the said order passed by the deputy commissioner was called in question by the petitioners in an appeal before the 5th respondent Karnataka appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "tribunal" ). The tribunal by its order dated 24th june, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-q dismissed the appeal holding that the deputy commissioner was entitled to pass order under sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act extinguishing kumki rights of the peti-tioners. Aggrieved by the said orders, these writ petitions are presented before this court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) SRI sanath kumar shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners challenging the correctness of the orders impugned urged three contentions. Firstly, he submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act does not authorise either the state government or the deputy commissioner to extinguish the kumki rights. According to him, Section 79 of the act only confers power on the state government to regulate the kumki privileges to be enjoyed by the varghadars. Firstly, he submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act does not authorise either the state government or the deputy commissioner to extinguish the kumki rights. According to him, Section 79 of the act only confers power on the state government to regulate the kumki privileges to be enjoyed by the varghadars. In support of his plea, he referred to me the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore V K. Chandrasekhara adiga and another, and drew my attention to para 25 of the said judgment. Secondly, he submitted that since there are other lands available in village and the lands in question are absolutely necessary by the petitioners and others for effective enjoyment of their vargha lands, the deputy commissioner was not justified in passing order at Annexure-E extinguishing kumki lights of the petitioners in respect of lands in question. He submitted that the said order has been passed without any application of mind and in a mechanical manner. Finally, he submitted that since the petitioners have filed form No. 53 in terms of Rule 108-c (2) of the karnataka land revenue rules (hereinafter referred to as the "rules"), the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the lands in question, till the said applications are disposed of, even if the kumki rights, of the petitioners in respect of said lands are extinguished. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, Sri S. N. Hatti, learned additional government Advocate and Sri Taranath Poojari, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, supported the impugned orders. ( 7 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the contentions urged by Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, it is useful to refer to Section 79 of the act which reads as hereunder:"79. Regulation of supply of firewood and timber for domestic or other purposes. ( 7 ) BEFORE I proceed to consider the contentions urged by Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, it is useful to refer to Section 79 of the act which reads as hereunder:"79. Regulation of supply of firewood and timber for domestic or other purposes. (1) in any village or land in which the rights of the state government to the trees have been reserved under Section 75 subject to certain privilege of the villagers or of certain classes of persons to cut firewood or timber for domestic or other purposes and in any land which has been set apart under Section 71 for forest reserve subject to such privileges, and in all other cases in which privileges exist in respect of any alienated land the exercise of the said privileges shall be regulated by such rules as may be prescribed, or by orders to be made either generally or in any particular instance by the deputy commissioner or by such other officer as the state government may direct. In any case of dispute as to the mode or time of exercising such privileges, the decision of the deputy commissioner or of such officer, shall be final. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to such general or special orders that may be issued by the state government from time to time, the privileges that are being enjoyed either by custom or under any order such as privileges in respect of kumki lands, bane lands and kane lands in south kanara district, betta lands and hadi lands in north kanara district, kan and soppina betta lands in Mysore area, jamma and bane in coorg district and motashal wet lands in hyderabad area shall continue". sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act extracted above, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subsequent to such general or special orders that may be issued by the state government from time to time, the privileges that are being enjoyed either by custom or by any other order such as privileges in respect of kumki lands, bane lands and kane lands in south kanara district, betta lands and hadi lands in north kanara district, kan and soppina betta lands in Mysore area, jamma and bane in coorg district and motashal wet lands in hyderabad area shall continue. In my view, the said provision provides that subject to general or special orders that may be issued by the state government from time to time, the kumki privileges would continue. Section 195 of the act empowers the government to delegate any of its powers conferred on it or any officers subordinate to it under the Act, to be exercised by such officers or authorities subject to such restrictions and conditions that may be specified in notification to be issued by the state government. There is no dispute that in exercise of the power conferred on the state government under Section 195 of the Act, the deputy commissioner was conferred with power to pass orders under sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act extinguishing kumki privileges. But the question is whether sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act does not confer any power on the state government to extinguish kumki lights and it only provides that kumki rights would continue as contended by Sri Shetty. In my view, it is not possible to take a view that sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act does not confer power on the state government to extinguish the kumki rights. While the said provision specifically provides that kumki rights would continue, the same provision provides that the continuance of kumki rights is subject to general or special orders that may be passed by the state government from time to time. When a statute which provides for continuance of kumki rights also makes the continuance of such kumki rights subject to general or special orders of the state government, such power must be understood as conferring power on the state government to extinguish the continuance of kumki rights. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the case of chandrasekhara adiga, supra, has taken the view that the kumki privileges are property rights. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has also taken the view that by means of statute the kumki privileges can be taken away. Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act as observed by me earlier, while provides for continuance of kumki rights also provides that such continuance is subject to general or special orders passed by the state government. The power of the state government to pass appropriate orders under section 79 (2) has undisputedly been delegated to the deputy commissioner. Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the act as observed by me earlier, while provides for continuance of kumki rights also provides that such continuance is subject to general or special orders passed by the state government. The power of the state government to pass appropriate orders under section 79 (2) has undisputedly been delegated to the deputy commissioner. The deputy commissioner in his order at Annexure-E has extinguished the kumki rights of the petitioners in respect of lands in question. Therefore, I am unable to accede the submission of Sri Shetty that there is no power conferred either on the state government or on the deputy commissioner extinguishing the kumki rights. The right to regulate the kumki rights, in my view, has to be understood as the right to extinguish the kumki rights, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the need of the state government to make the land available to the state government for disposal for public purposes. It is also necessary to point out that the lands in question are admittedly government lands and the petitioners were only enjoying kumki privileges. The kumki privileges relate only the right to remove the green leaves required for procuring manure for better cultivation of agricultural lands and use of the lands for the purpose of grazing cattle and to remove the fire wood, billets, etc. If the state government or the deputy commissioner keeping in mind the public interest, namely, that there are large number of persons who are in need of house sites for the purpose of their accommodation, passes an order extinguishing kumki rights/privileges, in my view, such an order cannot be declared as either arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal. Further, for the same reason it is not possible to take a view that forever the state government never intended to reserve the rights for itself to extinguish the kumki rights of varghadars of agricultural lands. When there is growing need for disposal of government lands for landless or siteless persons or other weaker sections of the society with a view to provide them shelter or livelihood, it is not permissible for this court to put a very narrow, pedantic or unrealistic construction to the Provisions contained in Section 79 of the act which would have the effect of causing serious injury to public interest. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first submission of Sri Shetty. ( 8 ) SO far as the second contention of Sri Shetty since there are other government lands available, the deputy commissioner was not justified in passing the order at Annexure-E is concerned, the finding recorded by the tribunal shows that there are no other government lands available for disposal as house sites to the landless persons. The said finding recorded by the tribunal is purely questions of fact. Further, in my view, whether there are government lands available or not and whether the said government land should be utilised or not or whether kumki privileges of varghadars have to be extinguished or not is a matter on which the deputy commissioner has to consider and once he considers and passes an Order, it is not permissible for this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to sit-over his judgment. In the instant case, the finding recorded shows that kumki privileges in respect of lands in question came to be extinguished by the deputy commissioner on the ground that the lands in question are required for the purpose of disposal of house sites to members of 1st respondent-association. It is pointed out that the members of the 1st respondent-association are all siteless people and are scheduled caste. In this situation, if the orders impugned have been passed, the said orders are not liable to be interfered with by his court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of india. ( 9 ) SO far as the other contention of Sri Shetty that till the form No. 53 filed by them are disposed of, it is not permissible to distribute the lands in question to the siteless persons is concerned, it is necessary to point out that the said applications were filed only on 29th january, 1999. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed form No. 50 as provided under Section 94-a of the act seeking regularization of their alleged unauthorised occupation in respect of lands in question. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed form No. 50 as provided under Section 94-a of the act seeking regularization of their alleged unauthorised occupation in respect of lands in question. In this background, I am of the view, that it is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the present case to give any direction to the authorities not to take any steps to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question till the disposal of their application filed in form No. 53. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek regularisation of their alleged unauthorised occupation in form No. 53 or not is a matter required to be considered by the authorities constituted under the act. But, so far as the prayer of the petitioners in these petitions for a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question, till the disposal of the said form No. 53 filed by the petitioners is concerned, in my view, the said protection cannot be granted in their favour in these petitions. However, it is necessary to observe that the rejection of these petitions will not come in the way of the authorities considering the prayer of the petitioners on merits to regularise their alleged unauthorised occupation pursuant to form No. 53 filed by them, if they are entitled in law. Further, it will be also in the interest of Justice to direct the authorities to dispose of the applications stated to have been filed by the petitioners in form No. 53, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, it is ordered. ( 10 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, these petitions are liable to be rejected accordingly, they are rejected, however, subject to the observation made above. ( 11 ) SRI s. n. hatti, learned additional government Advocate is given four weeks time to file his memo of appearance. --- *** --- .