ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Since common question of law and that of fact arise in these writ petitions, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petitions are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Without going into the merits or demerits of the subject-matter of the petitions, learned Counsel for the parties submit that the impugned orders of the Director of Mines and Geology be set aside and proceedings remitted to the authority for consideration afresh after the disposal of the O.S. No. 110 of 1996, O.S. No. 33 of 1997 and O.S. No. 148 of 1997, pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, instituted by the petitioner in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004, W.P. Nos. 17809 and 18199 of 2004 and the party respondent by name N.K. Shashidhar, respectively. 3. Briefly stated, facts are: The petitioner in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004 claims to be the owner of land measuring 66 acres and a lessee of 46 acres 27 guntas out of 112 acres 27 guntas in Sy. No. 296/1B/1 of Balkundi Village, Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District. The Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District issued a notification dated 5-8-1995, under Sections 2, 4 and 7 of the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, declaring that the aforesaid lands vest with the State Government. The petitioner having unsuccessfully questioned the said notification before this Court as well as the Supreme Court instituted the suit in O.S. No. 110 of 1996, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot for declaration of title to the said properties. 4. The petitioner in W.P. Nos. 17809 and 18199 of 2004, has instituted original suit O.S. No. 33 of 1997 for a declaration of his title to the very same property which is said to be pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot, while one N.K. Shashidhar the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004 and 5th respondent in the connected writ petitions, has instituted O.S. No. 148 of 1997 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot. 5. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Bagalkot having issued a No Objection Certificate in favour of Sri N.K. Shashidhar, a party respondent in these writ petitions, in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, 'KMMC Rules') in respect of the lands in Sy. No. 296/1B/1, was questioned in W.P. No. 7987 of 2002 and this Court while disposing of the said petition directed the Director of Mines and Geology to hold an enquiry into the claims of the contesting parties therein. Thereafter, it transpires that the petitioner in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004 not being a party to the proceeding therein questioned the grant made by the Director of Mines and Geology in favour of one of the parties in W.P. No. 7987 of 2002, by filing W.P. No. 5467 of 2003 and 27874 of 2003 ( Bharath Timber and Construction Company Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2005) 3 KarLJ 525 . This Court while disposing of the said writ petitions directed the Director of Mines and Geology to hold an enquiry and consider their claims too along with other claims. The orders impugned in these writ petitions are result of such an enquiry. 6. I.A. No. I of 2004 is filed by one T.P. Aboobacker seeking to implead himself as a party respondent 5 in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004. Smt. Manjula Kamadoli, learned Counsel for the impleading applicant would submit that her client is a necessary party to the proceedings since he is the owner of the immovable property in Sy. No. 296/IA/1 and also in Sy. No. 296/IB/1 of Balkundi Village, Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District having acquired title under a gift deed and that any order made in these writ petitions would have a direct bearing on the rights of the impleading applicant. Learned Counsel would further submit that the impleading applicant seeks to support the case of the petitioner insofar as it relates to questioning the orders of the Director of Mines and Geology impugned in the writ petitions. But, would maintain that there being an inter se dispute as regards title between the petitioner and the impleading applicant, her client's rights need to be protected. I.A. No. II of 2004 is filed by one All India Women's, Men's and Children's Welfare Association, seeking to implead itself as a party respondent in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004. But, would maintain that there being an inter se dispute as regards title between the petitioner and the impleading applicant, her client's rights need to be protected. I.A. No. II of 2004 is filed by one All India Women's, Men's and Children's Welfare Association, seeking to implead itself as a party respondent in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004. Sri D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel would seriously oppose the averments set out in both the applications. 7. There is no representation for the impleading applicant in I.A. No. II of 2004. Hence, the application is rejected. 8. I.A. No. I of 2004 is opposed by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri D.L.N. Rao would maintain that the claim of the impleading applicant is a figment of wild imagination and that it is the petitioner alone who is the owner of the property and also lessee of a portion of the property in question and has exerted his rights of title and leasehold claims in the suit for declaration instituted by him which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot. If at all the impleading applicant has any right, he ought to have questioned the notification dated 5-8-1995 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur District and instituted a suit for declaration of title before the appropriate Civil Court and having not done so cannot seek to be impleaded in this petition. 9. I find considerable force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel. The impleading applicant claiming to be the owner of the property in question is bound to seek a declaration of his title from competent Court and having not questioned the notification of the Deputy Commissioner, vesting the lands in the State, the impleading application cannot be considered at this stage in these proceedings. In that view of the matter, the application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. 10. In the exercise of jurisdiction under the KMMC Rules by the authorities concerned, to grant quarrying licences over the property in Sy. No. 296/IB/1 of Balkundi Village, Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District, the authorities rely upon the Notification dated 5-8-1995 issued by the Deputy Commissioner declaring vesting of the said property in the State. 10. In the exercise of jurisdiction under the KMMC Rules by the authorities concerned, to grant quarrying licences over the property in Sy. No. 296/IB/1 of Balkundi Village, Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District, the authorities rely upon the Notification dated 5-8-1995 issued by the Deputy Commissioner declaring vesting of the said property in the State. O.S. No. 106 of 1996 filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004 is for declaration of title over the said property as also the validity of the notification dated 5-8-1995. In the event the Civil Court decrees the suit, then the notification vesting the lands in the State will have to necessarily fail and the authorities cannot exercise any power over the said property under the KMMC Rules. On the contrary, if the suit is dismissed, subject to any orders in an appeal if any, filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff, it is open for the Director of Mines and Geology at that stage to consider the claims of the respondents, viz., Sajjan and Shashidhar, if such claims are made in respect of the property in Sy. No. 296/1B/1. 11. Keeping in mind the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties these writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. Annexure-X in W.P. Nos. 17809 and 18199 of 2004 and Annexure-K in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004 are the very same order passed by the Director of Mines and Geology and are accordingly quashed. Annexure-Y in W.P. Nos. 17809 and 18199 of 2004 being a consequential order pursuant to Annexure-X and K, the same is also quashed. The proceedings are remitted to the Director of Mines and Geology to consider the claims of the applicants in respect of Sy. No. 296/1B/1 of Balkundi Village, Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District, after disposal of the O.S. No. 110 of 1996 and O.S. No. 33 of 1997 filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 6619 of 2004 and the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 17809 and 18199 of 2004 respectively, as also O.S. No 148 of 1997 filed by the respondent Sri N/K. Shashidhar, pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bagalkot.