SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High court Act, 1961 against the order dated 30. 7. 1999 passed in w. P. No. 21346/94 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ Petition and confirmed the order dated 23. 3. 1994 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Appeal No. 485/1987, ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant-petitionerwas an applicant for grant of 10 acres of land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village, Thirthahallj Taluk, for the purpose of Rubber plantation. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that such application had been made in the year 1987 and had been made under Rule 16 of the Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short ). The appellant has further pleaded that s. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village measures an extent of approximately 147 acres 11 guntas and the said land is a soppina betta' and is available for grant for needy persons. ( 3 ) IT is also averred that the village in question has surplus gomallands and 'soppina betta' and is available for grant. It is pleaded that the State Government, by its Circular dated 14. 10. 1970, has indicated the mode of releasing the lands reserved as 'soppina betta' in the Malnad area, for the purpose of granting it for cultivation, and had issued directions to the Deputy Commissioners of Districts to de-reserve such excess 'soppina betta' lands by applying the following three conditions namely: "1. That no such land classified as Soppinabetta, shall be released for cultivation purposes, if the extent so reserved does not exceed twice the area of garden or wet lands in the village to which they are assigned; 2. That the release of land classified as Soppinabetta does not result in soil erosion; 3. That the Village Panchayath is consulted before any portion of Soppinabetta land is released for cultivation purposes. That the release of land classified as Soppinabetta does not result in soil erosion; 3. That the Village Panchayath is consulted before any portion of Soppinabetta land is released for cultivation purposes. " the Government, under this order had delegated such power for de-reservation of 'soppina betta' land for the purpose of granting the same for cultivation in genuine cases and had also struck a note of caution in the very same prder that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the delegated power to take care that the garden land situated in any village does not suffer by the release of 'soppina betta' land. It is obvious that having regard to the object of reserving 'soppina betta' land which is to provide for as a source of manure to the wet lands and garden lands situated in the village, de-reservation and release of 'soppina betta' land should not defeat the very object of creating 'soppina betta' reserve and it is only if such land which is found far in excess of the requirement of the village, it may be de-reserved and released for cultivation. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellant that pursuant to such anapplication being filed, the first respondent Deputy Commissioner had processed the said application and after complying with the procedural requirements, by an order dated 13. 2. 1997, released an extent of 10 acres of land from the gomal land, in accordance with the Government Circular No. RD. 26 LGP 70 dated 15. 2. 1970 and the said land had been granted in favour of the appellant-petitioner for rubber cultivation under Rule 7 (2) read with Rule 16 of the karnataka Land Grant Rules ('the Rules for short) at a market price of Rs. 1,000/- per acre subject to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules. ( 5 ) IT appears, pursuant to the said grant, the Tahsildar, Thirthahallitaluk, issued a 'saguvali chit' in favour of the appellant-petitioner on 7. 4. 1997 and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that subsequent to the grant in his favour, the appellant had taken sleps to develop the land for raising rubber plants and by seeking necessary permission from the rubber Board and financial aid from the Board and other financial institutions. 4. 1997 and the petitioner was put in possession of the said land. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that subsequent to the grant in his favour, the appellant had taken sleps to develop the land for raising rubber plants and by seeking necessary permission from the rubber Board and financial aid from the Board and other financial institutions. ( 6 ) IT is the further case of the appellant-petitioner that due tocertain enmity between the appellant and the 17th respondent and at the instance of this 17th respondent to the Writ Petition, respondents 4 to 16 and 18 had preferred appeal before the karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, questioning the legality of the grant made in favour of the appellant-petitioner and the said appeal came to be allowed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as per order dated 23. 3. 1994 passed in Appeal No. 485/87. The appellate Tribunal was of the view that the appellant-petitioner was a resident of Thirthalli village and carrying on jewellery business, is not a bona fide agriculturist being businessman and resident of thirthahalli Town, which is 10 K. Ms. away and such grant being not in conformity with the requirement of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land grant Rules, the grant is illegal and as such the order granting 10 acres in favour of appellant-petitioner by the first respondent was not sustainable and set aside the same. ( 7 ) IT is aggrieved by this order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,the appellant-petitioner preferred W. P. No. 21346/94. The learned single Judge who heard the matter, being of the view that having regard to the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, particularly that the petitioner-appellant was not a bona fide agriculturist, that he is a businessman carrying on jeweliery business at Thirthahally and his income being more than a lakh of rupees, is not a deserving person for grant under the Land Grant Rules and moreover, a division Bench of this Court having ruled that there cannot be successive grants under the Land Grant Rules and having noticed that the petitioner-appellant had been granted land earlier, granting of land subsequently in favour of the very same person is clearly in violation of the ratio laid down in the decision of the Division Bench and as such found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the above writ appeal is preferred. ( 8 ) SRI Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant-petitionerhas urged that the learned Single Judge is no! right in holding that the ratio laid down in the decision of the Division Bench reported in mallegowda vs THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND others is applicable to the facts of the case, the learned Single judge is not right in following this decision to dismiss the Writ Petition; that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Land Grant Rules are not attracted as the application is made under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Land grant Rules, the considerations for grant under Rule 4 of the Land grant Rules are entirely different from the considerations for grant of land under Rule 16 of the Rules; that the learned Single Judge should not have taken note of the developments subsequent to the grant of land in favour of the appellant namely the objections raised by the adjacent land holders and also the Resolution of the Mandal panchayath of Bukkalapura dated 11. 8. 1987 pointing out that the available 'gomal' land is not sufficient for grazing of cattle etc. ; and as such the order under appeal requires to be set aside as also the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the grant made in favour of the appellant-petitioner confirmed. ( 9 ) IT is also the submission of Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counselfor the appellant-petitioner that the grant made in favour of the appellant is fully in consonance with the Land Revenue Act and the land Grant Rules as also the previous Government Circulars issued in this regard and therefore no interference is called for to set aside the grant. ( 10 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant andalso perused the original records produced by the learned government Pleader. It is relevant to notice that the matter had been heard earlier also and another Division Bench of this Court, as per the order dated 7. 3. 2000 had, after hearing the matter for a while, adjourned the case at the request of Sri Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the appellant to answer some of the queries raised by the Court. The order dated 7. 3. 2000 reads as under:- "gcbj/ksrj: 7. 3. 3. 2000 had, after hearing the matter for a while, adjourned the case at the request of Sri Udaya Holla, learned counsel for the appellant to answer some of the queries raised by the Court. The order dated 7. 3. 2000 reads as under:- "gcbj/ksrj: 7. 3. 2000 order IN W. A No. 7415 of 1999 it appears that the impugned grant order dated 13. 3. 1987 (Annexure 'c') and Grant Certificate (Annexure 'd') favouring the appellant was passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner by deriving his powers under Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 (Annexure 'a') issued by the State Government for release of lands in soppina Betta and grant has been made for rubber,plantation. 2. Prima facie, bare reading of the circular at Annexure 'a' shows that the respondent Deputy Commissioner could have released the lands in Soppinabetta subject to the conditions that (i) it was genuinely required by the poor landless persons only for cultivation purpose, (ii) it would not have resulted In soil erosion, and (iii) the Village panchayat had been consulted before making such grant. The record does not bear out that before effecting the grant, compliance of the said conditions were taken care of by the respondent Deputy Commissioner. 3. Mr. Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant, wants time to address himself on the aforesaid aspects and enlighten us about the correctness of the impugned grant order. 4. Call on 28. 3. 2000 under preliminary hearing to enable Mr. H. B. Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader, to secure the records from the office of the concerned Deputy Commissioner relating to the grant made in favour of the appellant as also the resolution of the concerned Village panchayat in terms of condition (iii) contained in the circular referred to above. " it is in this background that the original records are being placed before the Court. ( 11 ) UNDER the provisions of Section 91 of the Karnataka Landrevenue Act, 1964 (the Act' for short) unoccupied Government land may be granted by the Deputy Commissioner on payment of a price and subject to such conditions and Rules imposed and formulated in this regard. The Land Revenue Act enables the State Government to make Rules and such enabling power is to be found in Section 197 of the Act and for the various purposes mentioned in sub-section (ii) of Section 197 of the Act. The Land Revenue Act enables the State Government to make Rules and such enabling power is to be found in Section 197 of the Act and for the various purposes mentioned in sub-section (ii) of Section 197 of the Act. Exercising such power, the Government of Karnataka has formulated the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short ). Rule 3 of these Rules enjoins upon the tahsildar of each Taluk to prepare a list of lands which have been earmarked for the special purposes mentioned under Section 71 of the Act and such of those lands which are classified as belonging to C and D categories of lands by the Department of Agriculture and unoccupied land other than such classified lands which is available for disposal to be granted for cultivation etc. Sub-Rule (2) of this Rule also enjoins that such unoccupied available land which is available for disposal should be indicated in a list and that list should be notified at the Taluk Office and in respect of each village, it should be notified either in the Chavadi of that village or at the office of the Grama Panchayat. Such a list should also be available for inspection with the concerned Village Accountant. This list is required to be updated every year and a fresh list indicating the current position of such available land should be notified before the 1st day of July each year as per Rule 3 (3) of the Rules. Rule 4 of these Rules provides for the eligibility criteria for grant of land for agricultural purposes to any person. The requirements are that the persons should not have gross annual income exceeding Rs. 18,000/ must be a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally and person who is not a sufficient holder. "sufficient holder" is defined under Rule 2 (15) of these Rules. Even while making such grants, rule 5 envisages that the ratio of reservation mentioned in this Rule should be adhered to. Rule 8 provides the procedure for grant of land for agricultural purposes which is by means of an application in the prescribed manner by the aspiring person. The necessary particulars indicated in this Rule are to be furnished to enable the processing of the application. Rule 8 provides the procedure for grant of land for agricultural purposes which is by means of an application in the prescribed manner by the aspiring person. The necessary particulars indicated in this Rule are to be furnished to enable the processing of the application. It is obvious that this is a continuing process and it is incumbent upon the Tahsildar to cause the particulars of the application to be entered in a register which is to be maintained at his office and in the prescribed manner and further, the Tahsildar is required to look into all the applications received up to the 1st of November each year and classify them according to the priorities mentioned in Rule 6. Applications received after the 30th of September each year, have to be scrutinised and classified by the Tahsiidar once a month. The Tahsildar is empowered to grant the land applied for, after holding an enquiry in this regard and after being satisfied about the eligibility and the bona fides of the applicant and subject to the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules. He may grant the land applied for if it is so available. If, either the land is not available or if the person who has applied is not eligible for the grant, the Tahsildar may reject the application and inform the applicant accordingly. If the extent of land applied for is not within the power of the Tahsildar to grant the same, he may in turn, forward the application to the Officer who is competent to grant such extent of land and such Officer may pass orders on the application for grant. It is also made incumbent upon the Tahsildar to record in each such grant if made, that the grant is in conformity with the reservations specified under Rule 5 of the Rules. ( 12 ) RULES 9 and 10 of the Rules provide for conditions andrestrictions in respect of the granted lands. Rule 16 provide for grant of land for cultivation of plantation crops. ( 12 ) RULES 9 and 10 of the Rules provide for conditions andrestrictions in respect of the granted lands. Rule 16 provide for grant of land for cultivation of plantation crops. Grant of land under this rule is subject to the provisions of Rules 7 and 9 of these Rules and subject to a ceiling of the holding of the grantee that after the grant, the holding shall not exceed 50 hectares in all and the grant in the first instance to be within ten hectares for plantation of cardamom, tea and other cultivation. ( 13 ) SECTION 71 of the Act which provides for setting apart landsfor free-pasturage for the village cattle popularly known as 'gomal' lands for authorised reservations or for any other village purposes and such earmarked land should not be used for any other purpose without the due sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and while any lands are disposed of under Section 69 or Section 91 of the act, due regard should be given to the reservation provided for under this Section. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, what is significant to observe is that thereservation of lands as for 'gomal' and as for 'soppina betta' is spoken of and their extent is referred to by the authorities. On a perusal of the record, it becomes obvious that both types of lands exist in the village in question and it is not very clear from the records as to whether the authorities have consciously maintained the distinction between these two categories of lands namely 'gomal' and 'aoppina betta' lands. ( 15 ) THESE Conditions and Regulations apart, for grant of landand diversion from earmarked purposes, it appears, the State government had issued a Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 in No. RD. ( 15 ) THESE Conditions and Regulations apart, for grant of landand diversion from earmarked purposes, it appears, the State government had issued a Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 in No. RD. 26 lgw 70 (copy produced at Annexure-A to the writ petition), relating to the question of grant of 'soppina betta' lands to genuine, bona fide and needy applicants, it is obvious on a reading of this Circular that 'soppina betta' land which is a class of land which is reserved or earmarked for a specific purpose in the Malnad area and by usage and custom, it is understood that such lands are to be maintained as it is and only the agriculturists/villagers in the abutting lands are enabled to pluck leaves from trees and plantation in the 'soppina betta' lands which can be used as a manure, particularly in their wet lands. The 'soppina betta' land is used as a supporting eco system for the wet lands and garden lands in the vicinity. It transpires that when such 'soppina betta' land which is a reserved land was sought to be tapped for the purpose of grants in favour of very deserving and eligible persons, a proposal had to be sent to the government on each such occasion and the Government was to consider the proposal and pass orders de-reserving the extent of land that was to be granted and orders were passed thereafter. In the circular dated 14. 10. 1970 referred to above, the Government had slightly modified this procedure by delegating this power of de- reserving and releasing 'soppina betta' land for the purpose of cultivation, in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of the Districts subject to three conditions namely: - "1. that no such land classified as soppinabetta, shall be released for cultivation purposes, if the extent so reserved does not exceed twice the area of garden or wet lands in the village to which they are assigned; 2. that the release of land classified as Soppina betta does not result in soil erosion; 3. that the Village Panchayath is consulted before any portion of soppinabetta land is released for cultivation purposes. that the release of land classified as Soppina betta does not result in soil erosion; 3. that the Village Panchayath is consulted before any portion of soppinabetta land is released for cultivation purposes. ( 16 ) HERE again, stress was laid to impress upon the Deputycommissioners that whenever such release or de-reservation is made to give an extent of land coming out of the 'soppina betta' land, care should be taken to see that the garden land situated in the village does not suffer in any manner by diminishing the extent of 'soppina betta' land. ( 17 ) THIS circular also assumes importance in the instant case,as the land which had been sought for allotment by the appellant- applicant, is said to be forming part of S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village measuring a total extent of 147 acres 11 guntas which is said to be 'soppina betta' land. We are constrained to make a detailed reference to these provisions of Land Grant' Rules and Circulars of the government, having regard to the number of cases that are coming up of later, challenging such grant of lands for various purposes on the ground that the power under the Act and Rules for grant of government lands are being abused to enable a chosen few who are either politically or socially powerful and influential while granting lands in favour of undeserving persons without any care and attention, depriving the grant to persons who are genuinely in need of such land. One another very ironic aspect which we again notice is such Government lands which are specifically earmarked/reserved for public purpose such as 'gomal' land or 'soppina betta' land, are being looked upon and used as a source for grant of lands to various applicants and most of the time, to undeserving persons. The ironic aspect here is, when the reservation is to sub-serve a public purpose, the larger interest of the village and the society, that larger interest is given a go-by and thrown to winds by systematically de-reserving such lands for the benefit of private individuals and granting these lands in favour of private individuals. ( 18 ) IT is no doubt true that the weaker and socially backwardclasses of society have to be taken care of by the Government and have to be provided ways and means to become self-sufficient to sustain themselves. ( 18 ) IT is no doubt true that the weaker and socially backwardclasses of society have to be taken care of by the Government and have to be provided ways and means to become self-sufficient to sustain themselves. But it should not be at the cost of the larger interest of the society itself. All sections of the society form part of the very society and as such, when the interest of society is affected, it affects each and every section of the society. Here again, unfortunately in the name of conferring certain benefits to the economically and socially weaker sections of the society, such enabling provisions are being abused by the arbitrary and indiscriminatory exercise of the power and for considerations other than one for which such provisions have been made. The instant case appears to be one such classic example. The Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 by which the Government has delegated the power for dereservation of 'soppina betta' land subject to the three conditions mentioned therein has been issued to obviate delay in genuine cases of proposals for consideration and to relieve the Government from the burden of administrative work involved in this regard. But what is significant to be noticed here is, while making such de-reservation, particularly of the lands which form part of 'soppina betta' land, the authorities are to be guided by considerations of public interest rather than the merits and de-merits of an application. This is because, de-reservation from out of 'soppina betta' land, is inevitably against the larger public interest. Therefore, unless the authorities are satisfied that the damage by de-reservation is confined to the minimum and it does not defeat the purpose and object of reserving the land as 'soppina betta' land and the representatives of the villagers are involved in this process and their views are taken note of from the angle of the larger interest of the entire village community, such land cannot be released from reservation. In fact, this is an exercise which has to be undertaken independently by the Deputy commissioner having regard to the three conditions mentioned in the Government Circular, independent of the application for grant of land from out of 'soppina betta' land and even before the stage of considering the applications for grant of land is reached. In fact, this is an exercise which has to be undertaken independently by the Deputy commissioner having regard to the three conditions mentioned in the Government Circular, independent of the application for grant of land from out of 'soppina betta' land and even before the stage of considering the applications for grant of land is reached. This exercise cannot be undertaken in the context and for the purpose of granting some extent of land in favour of the applicant, as though the circular is issued only to enable such matters. Unless this exercise of dereserving precedes the consideration of the applications for grant, the authorities concerned will not be in a position to comply with the requirement of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, which enjoins that the available land for disposal is tabulated and notified at the Office of the Village Panchayat or at the Office of the Tahsildar etc. , for the information of the aspiring applicants. ( 19 ) RULE 3 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules has a veryimportant purpose to serve namely that it eliminates arbitrary or favoured grants by the authorities inasmuch as when once the available land are notified to the knowledge of all in the village, the persons interested will be applying for the same and the consideration can only be from among such applicants. This Rule also has another object of providing equality of opportunity to all interested persons and eliminates the possibility of secretive or clandestine grants to the favoured persons and from land not indicated for disposal being granted. Unfortunately, in the present case, the record nowhere indicates that the authorities had taken any steps to publish the available land for disposal in the village and it is obvious that the land which had been granted in favour of the appellant namely 10 acres in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village, was not a land which had been indicated as "available for disposal" by a publication as per rule 3 of the Rules. ( 20 ) ANOTHER very disturbing aspect is, the record indicates, thatthe entire file is built up only for the purpose of making the grant of 10 acres of land in favour of the appellant-applicant from out of s. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village which had been earmarked as 'soppina betta'. ( 20 ) ANOTHER very disturbing aspect is, the record indicates, thatthe entire file is built up only for the purpose of making the grant of 10 acres of land in favour of the appellant-applicant from out of s. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village which had been earmarked as 'soppina betta'. This is because, the de-reservation and the grant are being made simultaneously by means of the same order dated 13. 3. 1987. ( 21 ) EVEN with regard to the fulfillment of first condition stipulatedin the Government Circular dated 14. 10. 1970, the picture is not at alt clear. While there is no doubt or ambiguity about the land in respect of which the applicant has applied for namely 10 acres of land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village earmarked as 'soppina betta' land which measured a total extent of 147 acres 11 guntas, when it comes to the question of consideration of this from the angle of the available extent of 'soppina betta' land or 'gomai land', the record speaks of an extent of 816. 14 acres of 'gomal' land in Thirthalli village and an extent of 803. 14 acres of 'soppina betta' land as against 84 number of cattle and 492. 20 acres of cultivated lands. But, while a grant of 10 acres of land from S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura is made, the order dated 13. 3. 1987 recites that this land is released from 'gomal' land whereas the entire record speaks that the land in s. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village is earmarked as 'soppina betta' land. It is not clear as to whether any extent of this 816 acres-14 guntas of 'gomal land' and 803 acres 14 guntas of 'soppina betta' land is available in Bukkalapura village itself or elsewhere. Yet another circumstance is that there appears to be no updating of such disposable lands available for grant as required under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules and in the absence of the same, indicating that there is 816 acres-14 guntas of 'soppina betta' land may be giving a very distorted picture of the factual position. ( 22 ) THE requirement of fulfilling condition No. 3 of the Governmentcircular dated 14. 10. ( 22 ) THE requirement of fulfilling condition No. 3 of the Governmentcircular dated 14. 10. 1970 also appears to have been procured for the purpose of granting the land in favour of the applicant in as much as the mahazar drawn up in this regard which is available in the file, indicates that the Revenue Inspector had drawn up a mahazar on 25. 11. 1986 in the presence of about six persons who are indicated to be agriculturists in the neighbourhood and who had no objection for grant of 10 acres of land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village in favour of the applicant on the premise that there is sufficient gomal land available in the village. The important aspect which has been missed here by the authorities is that the requirement of condition No. 3 of the Government Circular dated 14,10. 1970 is not from the point of affecting some individual villagers who may have expressed their opinion in the matter, but in the context of examining the larger interest of the village as a whole which can be portrayed through the representative body of village panchayat and on examination of consequence of reduction in the extent of land reserved for 'gomal' purpose or 'soppina betta' purpose affecting the interest of the village as a whole. The mahazar dated 25. 11. 1986. is relied upon as an enabling material for grant of land and to comply with condition No. 3 of the Government Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 is of no consequence for the purpose of compliance with condition no. 3 of the Government Circular dated 14. 10. 1970. This assumes greater significance in the context of the objections raised by several persons in the same village, who are respondents 4 to 18 in the appeal and all claim to be residents of Bukkalapura village and who have been granted land in the very survey number earlier and who have expressly pointed out that grant of land in favour of the appellant-applicant will adversely affect the interest of the village and more so when there is no sufficient grazing land available for the cattle. It becomes very obvious that the authorities had made a sham of compliance of conditions 1 and 3 of the Circular dated 14. 10. 1970. It becomes very obvious that the authorities had made a sham of compliance of conditions 1 and 3 of the Circular dated 14. 10. 1970. Even with regard to the compliance of condition No. 2 namely the examination of release of land from 'soppina betta' resulting in soil erosion, appears to have been procured only to enable the grant inasmuch as except for one sentence in the report of the Tahsildar dated 30. 1. 1987 which reads as: ( 23 ) THERE is nothing on record to indicate how it has been examined and what expert opinion had been obtained or any technical report had been submitted in this regard or as to whether it is based on the report of any other independent authority. A very important and significant requirement such as this which is required to be examined from the context of ecological point of view and by a technically competent person, cannot be said to have been achieved by the mere opinion of the Tahsildar. It is more so when the land in S. No. 20 of Bukkalapura village is a 'soppina betta' land located right on the bank of the river Tunga. ( 24 ) ONE another interesting and unexplained aspect of the reading of the report of the Tahsildar is that out of S. No. 147 acres 11 guntas of 'soppina betta' land in S. No. 20 at Bukkalapura village, it is recited that an extent of about 40 acres of land had been granted earlier in favour of eighteen persons, some of whom are respondents in this appeal in 'dharkhast' proceedings and another extent of 24 acres 28 guntas had been granted in favour of the very appellant earlier for coffee cultivation and the remaining extent of 80 acres 23 guntas of land had been sanctioned for allotment of sites in favour of persons without housing sites under the Janata Housing Scheme. This is found in the report of the Tahsildar dated 30. 1. 1987. If this is so, no extent of land is left for further allotment in this survey number and it is quite surprising as to how the Deputy Commissioner can gloss over this aspect of the matter and make an allotment of 10 acres of land from out of this very survey number as per the Order dated 13. 3. 1987. If this is so, no extent of land is left for further allotment in this survey number and it is quite surprising as to how the Deputy Commissioner can gloss over this aspect of the matter and make an allotment of 10 acres of land from out of this very survey number as per the Order dated 13. 3. 1987. ( 25 ) EVEN here, it is revealed that on a perusal of the records, that the certificate issued by the Rubber Board indicating the land which had been allotted in favour of the appellant to be moderately suited for rubber planting, is issued much iater to the grant itself inasmuch as such a communication from the Deputy Development officer of Rubber Board addressed to the Tahsildar, Thirthahalli, is dated 27. 4. 1987 much subsequent to the grant dated 13. 3. 1987. If that is so, the grant has been made even before eliciting the views of the Rubber Board. On a reading of the provisions of Rule 16 (3) which indicates the requirement of Coffee Board's opinion, opining that the land is fit for coffee cultivation, should be available before the authority granting the land and if such opinion is to the contrary, the application shall be rejected, can be complied with only when opinion of the concerned Board is before the authority before making the grant. If the spirit behind this Rule is to be applied to the instant grant, the grant fails. The records reveal that the grant has been made even before the views of the Rubber Board had been received. This is yet another circumstance to indicate that the authorities were only too eager to grant the land in favour of the appellant and had given a total go-by to all requirements of statutory provisions while granting the land in favour of the appellant. ( 26 ) YET another very anomalous and intriguing aspect is that on a pointed query from the Bench, Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant asserted that the appellant had applied for grant of land, being a resident of the village itself namely Bukkalapura village, whereas the record speaks that the applicant (appellant) is a resident of Thirthahalli Town/village and the order dated 13. 3. 1987 recites that the applicant (appellant) is a resident of Seebinakere, Bettinakki, thirthahalli. The report of the Tahsildar which is dated 30. 1. 3. 1987 recites that the applicant (appellant) is a resident of Seebinakere, Bettinakki, thirthahalli. The report of the Tahsildar which is dated 30. 1. 1987 brings out another aspect that the subsequent grant of 10 acres as per the order dated 13. 3. 1987 is second such grant in the very survey number, inasmuch as, the appellant had been granted an extent of 24 acres 28 guntas earlier for coffee cultivation. If this is so, it is obvious that the appellant was the beneficiary of successive grants and in that context, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this court reported in KCCR 1999 (1) 801 (DB) (SUPRA) is also attracted to the facts of the case. ( 27 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the appellant, subsequent to the grant made in his favour, has effected considerable improvement and by investing huge amounts and has raised rubber trees which are more than 8 to 10 years old as on the date when the grant was set aside and having regard to such developments and having regard to the considerable lapse of time subsequent to the grant, the authorities should not have set aside the grant to the detriment of the appellant. It may be true that the appellant has effected improvements on the land granted in his favour and had also invested huge amounts. However, such subsequent developments can in no way validate any illegal grant made in contravention of the statutory rules and without complying with the requirements. In the instant case, we have noticed that the grant has been made flouting all norms and statutory requirements and in derogation of larger public interest. In matters where an individual's private interest is in conflict with the larger public interest affecting the community as a whole, the individual's interest always nas to yield to the larger interest of the community. In fact, the private interest of an individual cannot be put on par with the larger interest of the community as a whole and there cannot be any comparison also. ( 28 ) THE mere fact that the appellant had effected improvements and had invested huge sums, will not be a circumstance to validate an otherwise invalid grant. In fact, the private interest of an individual cannot be put on par with the larger interest of the community as a whole and there cannot be any comparison also. ( 28 ) THE mere fact that the appellant had effected improvements and had invested huge sums, will not be a circumstance to validate an otherwise invalid grant. Accordingly we reject this contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the grant in favour of the appellant should not have been disturbed in view of the improvements effected on the land and investments made thereon. ( 29 ) ONE another submission of Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant to invalidate the order of the Tribunal passed in the appeal at the instance of respondents 4 to 18 is that the appeal before the Tribunal impugning the order passed by the Deputy commissioner granting the land in favour of the appellant had been filed after an inordinate delay and as such the appeal should not have been entertained and on the other hand, it should have been dismissed as barred by time. It is the submission of the learned counsel in this regard that though this aspect of the matter was urged before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge has not noticed the same and as such the order of the learned Single Judge is also bad. ( 30 ) THE appeal before the Tribunal had been filed by respondents 4 to 18 in the year 1987 i. e. on 23. 9. 1987 questioning the legality of the grant made as per the order dated 13. 3. 1987. However, the appellants before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had cogently explained the delay in filing the appeal and the Appellate Tribunal had framed a specific point on this aspect as to whether sufficient cause was shown by the appellants to condone the delay. The appellate Tribunal, on an examination of the circumstances urged by the appellants in support of their application seeking condonation of delay and being of the view that the said delay has been fully and satisfactorily explained by the appellant-applicants, had allowed the application for condonation of delay and had entertained the appeal on merits. In allowing such application, the Appellate Tribunal had exercised its discretionary jurisdiction. In allowing such application, the Appellate Tribunal had exercised its discretionary jurisdiction. In our view, the said discretion has been exercised in a sound manner and for justifiable reasons. We are of the view that no exception can be taken against the order of the Tribunal for allowing the application for condonation of delay. We are also of the view that the Tribunal was justified in entertaining the appeal on merits. In this view of the matter, the ground urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not consider this ground urged in the Writ Petition will not in any way affect the outcome or the result in the Writ Petition. This submission on behalf of the appellant is accordingly rejected. ( 31 ) THESE aspects apart, the appellant has no right for seeking grant of any extent of land in his favour. Grant of land in favour of a person is a gratis by the State. In fact, Rule 26 of the Land Grant rules makes this position very clear. It reads as under: "nothing contained in these Rules shall be deemed to confer on any person any right to the grant of any land. " if this is the legal position, an illegal grant made in favour a person cannot be put on a higher pedastal to sustain such a grant even after it is noticed that the grant had been made in contravention of the statutory provisions, of the Land Revenue Act and the karnataka Land Grant Rules'. In fact, no rights flow from an illegal grant in favour of any person. A person who is the beneficiary of an illegal grant, cannot also plead any equity in his favour. Considerations of equity cannot validate an otherwise illegal grant. In fact, in so far as the gomal land is concerned, provisions of Rule 97 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules should prevail and at any rate de-reservation of gomal land for the purpose of granting the same in favour of applicants seeking for grant of Government lands cannot be in violation or in contravention of the provisions of Rule 97 of the Rules. In a case where gomal land or 'soppina betta' land is sought to be dereserved, at the stage of such de-reservation, it is the provisions of Rule 97 which are relevant and which should prevail. In a case where gomal land or 'soppina betta' land is sought to be dereserved, at the stage of such de-reservation, it is the provisions of Rule 97 which are relevant and which should prevail. On the other hand, in the instant case, we notice that the grant in question has been made oblivious to the requirements of Rule 97 of the Rules. ( 32 ) WE are constrained to place on record certain shocking revelations that has surfaced in the course of our examination of this appeal and the facts of the present case, in the light of the relevant statutory provisions. The most ironic and distressing aspect is, while the Act and the Rules seek to provide for safeguarding the interest of the community as a whole, seek to provide for 'maintaining the ecological balance' and for preservation of community land, to sub-serve common interest of all the villagers living in the village and specific provisions have been made in this regard the authorities functioning under the Act have virtually subverted such provisions and de-reserving and diverting lands from such community lands appears to be the order of the day and while doing so, the authorities have been systematically giving a go-by to the purpose of making such provisions under the Act and the Rules. Every time a grant has to be made, the authorities look up to only reserved lands meant mainly for sub-serving the larger community interest and keep on de-reserving and divesting such lands in favour of individuals in contravention of the statutory provisions. It is really ironic that the lands reserved for specific purposes are looked upon as a source for promoting private individual interest and unless such a trend is arrested and reversed, in days to come, the environmental and ecological imbalances which have already set in, may get aggravated further and the society itself may have to pay a very heavy price. It is high time that the authorities functioning under the Act and the rules take note of the need for maintaining the larger public Interest which is embedded in various provisions of the Act and Rules and act in conformity with the same and not in contravention of the same. It is high time that the authorities functioning under the Act and the rules take note of the need for maintaining the larger public Interest which is embedded in various provisions of the Act and Rules and act in conformity with the same and not in contravention of the same. In fact, as a matter of rule, the following should be the guidelines which the authorities should follow:- (i) Either gomal land or 'soppina betta' should not be de- reserved at all. (ii) The authorities should undertake survey and ascertain if any available extent of such reserved land is in conformity with the requirements under the provisions of the Act and the Rules; (iii) If it is found that the lands reserved for such public purpose have been de-reserved and diverted beyond the permitted limits, steps should be taken to ensure that the shortfall is made good by reserving other available Government lands for such purpose and by creating green-belt areas in such lands; (iv) In very rare and exceptional cases whore de-reserving gomal land or 'soppina betta' land may become necessary and only where such reserved land is in excess of the land required to be reserved having regard to the needs and requirements of the village in favour of whom it is reserved, then alone such reserved land may be de-reserved and strictly in compliance with the conditions laid down for such de-reservation. (v) In the matter of grant of lands under the Land Grant Rules, the authorities should strictly comply with the requirements of land Grant rules, particularly of Rule 3 enjoining the authorities to prepare and publish a list of lands available for disposal, of rule 4 indicating the eligibility for grant of lands for agricultural purposes, of Rule 5 providing for reservation in favour of specific classes of society maintaining the order of priority indicated in rule 6 following the procedure under Rule 8 for grant of lands for agricultural purposes and other requirements and conditions provided for under the Land Grant Rules as well as the Land revenue Act and the Land Revenue Rules. ( 33 ) IN any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the grant made in favour of the appellant under the impugned order dated 13. 3. ( 33 ) IN any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the grant made in favour of the appellant under the impugned order dated 13. 3. 1987 is clearly in contravention of all norms, Rules and regulations governing the grant of lands and also in the teeth of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in mallegowda's case supra (KCCR 1999 (1) 801 (DB ). !n this view of the matter, we find absolutely no scope for interference with the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals filed by the respondents 4 to 16 and 18 and setting aside the grant in favour of the appellant-applicant ( 34 ) THOUGH a matter of this nature should not have detained us for this long, and exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not have examined the issue involved at such great fength, inasmuch as Sri Udaya Holla, learned Counsel for the appellant made a fervent plea that the learned Single Judge is totally in error in applying a wrong provision of law to dismiss the Writ Petition and as the grievance of the petitioner (appellant) had not been looked into at all and particularly in the cdntext of the earlier order of this Court dated 7. 3. 2000 giving an opportunity to the learned Counsel for the appellant for making submissions to meet the queries raised therein and also directing the Government Pleader to produce the record, we thought it fit to bestow our full attention in the matter. The larger public interest involved in such matters and the persistent irregularities and illegalities practised by the authorities concerned in the matter of grant of lands also disturbed our conscience considerably and we have thought it fit that we must bestow proper attention on this aspect and lay down certain norms in this regard. It is in this context we have examined the whole aspect of the matter. Unfortunately, what we have found is most disturbing and it appears the entire file is tailor-made and built up only for the purpose of effecting a grant in favour of the appellant throwing to winds public interest and in gross violation and contravention of statutory provisions. It is in this context we have examined the whole aspect of the matter. Unfortunately, what we have found is most disturbing and it appears the entire file is tailor-made and built up only for the purpose of effecting a grant in favour of the appellant throwing to winds public interest and in gross violation and contravention of statutory provisions. We would like to strike a note of caution on the authorities concerned that they should strictly adhere to the requirements of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules which we have referred to in great detail in the earlier part of this judgment and also the manner in which the three conditions stipulated in the Government Circular dated 14. 10. 1970 is required to be complied with and what interest should govern when examining the compliance of these three conditions. ( 35 ) IN this view of the matter, we find no reason even to disturb the finding given by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ petition. It is only reiteration of the findings of the Tribunal and which are recorded as the final fact finding authority. ( 36 ) ACCORDINGLLY this appeal is dismissed levying a cost of Rs. 5,000/ -. --- *** --- .