ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioner, claiming to be in unauthorized cultivation of 4.38 acres of land in Sy. No. 49, is seeking a direction to the 2nd Respondent-Land Grant Committee to consider and allot the said extent of land in his favour as per the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 32288 of 1998 or to declare that Petitioner has perfected title by adverse possession. The Petitioner has placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 5.5.1997. According to the Petitioner, the total extent of the land is 244.36 acres comprising of 144.15 acres of Government land and 100.21 acres of reserve forest land. 2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the claim of the Petitioner. Placing reliance on Annexure-A the letter dated 16.7.2001 addressed to the Petitioner by the concerned Range Forest Officer, he submits that the land in question cannot be granted or regularised as the entire extent of 244.36 acres is stated to be a 'reserved forest area'. But, the Record of Rights at Annexure-B produced by the Petitioner indicates that 144.15 acres as Parampoku and 100.21 acres as reserved forest. 3. The writ petition has to be dismissed for more than one reason. Admittedly, the Petitioner claims that he is cultivating the land unauthorisedly. But, he has not produced any document to show that he has filed necessary application seeking regularisation before the Committee constituted under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. On the other hand, the prayer is to consider the request for allotment of the land. Land in unauthorized cultivation cannot be granted as sought for by the Petitioner but it can be regularised. There is no application filed by the Petitioner in this regard to the concerned Committee. The first part of the prayer is not correct and cannot be granted. 4. The other prayer of the Petitioner to declare that he has perfected title to the land by adverse possession, cannot be granted in writ proceedings. In addition to that, the Petitioner himself has admitted in paragraph 5 of the petition that there is interference by the staff of Forest Department. Therefore, to secure the declaration sought for, the Petitioner has to institute civil suit before the competent Civil Court. Further, when Petitioner himself states that he is in unauthorized cultivation of the land and seek relief in that direction, he cannot claim the benefit of adverse possession. Therefore, to secure the declaration sought for, the Petitioner has to institute civil suit before the competent Civil Court. Further, when Petitioner himself states that he is in unauthorized cultivation of the land and seek relief in that direction, he cannot claim the benefit of adverse possession. Virtually the prayers are conflicting with each other. On this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed apart from the fact that the petition involves disputed question of fact as to the nature of the land. 5. The Petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 32288 of 1998 produced as Annexure-E. In the said order it is observed as follows: It is the Committee which is constituted under Section 94-A read with relevant rules, it is open for the Petitioner to file an application if law permits him to do so before the concerned committee requesting the said authority to consider his application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. If the authority does not consider the same, he is at liberty to approach this Court seeking appropriate orders in that regard. As already observed, the Petitioner has not filed necessary application before the Committee constituted under Section 94-A of the Act. The 2nd Respondent-Committee cannot consider the claim for regularisation. The same has been made clear in the order passed by this Court as per Annexure-E. 6. On the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 4.10.2001, the Petitioner has filed Form No. 50 along with memo dated 29.10.2001. In the application the date is mentioned as 15.10.2001 and the same is filed before this Court and not before the concerned Committee. The concerned Committee cannot consider the claim of the Petitioner in the absence of necessary application filed before it. 7. Since Petitioner has produced the Pahanis as per Annexures-C, C-1 and C-2 showing that he is cultivating the land to the extent mentioned therein, it is open for him to file Form 53 under Section 94(B) of the Act before the concerned Committee. If such application is filed, the Committee shall consider the same in accordance with law taking into consideration, whether the land is reserved for forest and available for regularisation in favour of the Petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and direction.