ORDER The petitioner when he was not employed requested the Land Grant Committee to grant 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 21 of Malalli Village, Sagar Taluk. The Committee considering the request of the petitioner, by its resolution dated 20-11-1976, recommended to grant 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 21 of Malalli Village, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga. Though the recommendation is of the year 1976, the land was not at all granted to the petitioner. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner secured a job as a telephone operator in the same village. 25 years later, the petitioner requested the Tahsildar to grant the above said land based on the recommendation of the Committee dated 20th November, 1976. The request of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Tahsildar as per the endorsement dated 24-4-2001 on the ground that after the recommendation, the lands were treated as Class 'C' and 'D' and the same has been transferred to the Forest Department by cancelling the dharkasth records and the Tahsildar has further held that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of land since he is a Central Government employee in the Post and Telegraph Department and that he is a sufficient landholder and not entitled for the grant. 3. This endorsement was questioned by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division in R.A. No. 53 of 2001-2002 which appeal was allowed on 20th December, 2003 by the Assistant Commissioner, directing the Tahsildar to issue saguvali chit in favour of the petitioner in respect of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 21 of Malalli Village, Sagar Taluk, Shimoga on the ground that the Committee has passed a resolution recommending grant of 4 acres of land to the petitioner and that the same was not finalised due to missing of records. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner held that the decision of the Committee could not be reconsidered by the Tahsildar. Against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar, some of the villagers filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga in RA. No. 5 of 2003-2004 and that the appeal filed by the villagers came to be partly allowed and this order is called in question in this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. No. 5 of 2003-2004 and that the appeal filed by the villagers came to be partly allowed and this order is called in question in this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to note that the villagers have no locus standi to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner since they were not rival claimants. According to him the Deputy Commissioner has also committed an error in directing the Tahsildar to issue an endorsement afresh to the petitioner as if the petitioner is not entitled for grant of land since he is a Central Government employee and that he is an excess landholder. According to him, when the Committee passed a resolution recommending the case of the petitioner for grant of 4 acres of land, the petitioner was not an employee and he was not in possession of any land. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner without considering relevant date to consider for grant of land, taking into the subsequent events, has erroneously allowed the appeal. Therefore, he requests this Court to allow the writ petition and quash the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the resolution of the Committee was only a recommendation and when the recommendation has not been culminated in granting the land and issuance of a grant certificate, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of land due to subsequent developments. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is: (i) Whether the petitioner being a Central Government employee is entitled for grant of land and whether the orders of the Deputy Commissioner is required to be interfered with? 8. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner made an application for grant of 4 acres of land in the year 1976, he was not employed. The Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 reads as under: "4. 8. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner made an application for grant of 4 acres of land in the year 1976, he was not employed. The Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 reads as under: "4. Persons eligible for grant of land for agricultural purposes.-(1) Lands available for disposal may be granted for agricultural purposes under these rules to a person.- (i) who has attained the age of eighteen; and (ii) whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees eight thousand; land (iii) who is either a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally or has bona fide intention to take up personal cultivation; and (iv) who is not a sufficient holder: Provided that in the case of Ex-servicemen and Soldiers, lands may be granted, if the gross annual income of the applicant exceed Rupees eight thousand but less than rupees twenty thousand: Provided further that the extent of land granted to any person shall not together with the land already held by such person exceed the limits prescribed for a sufficient holder in Rule 2(15). (2) Not Withstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) any person may be granted the land adjacent or close to the land already held by him on collection of market value as on the date of grant to be determined by the authority granting the land, if such land is, in the opinion of such authority required for better enjoyment or better cultivation of the land so held: Provided that no such grant shall be made of an extent exceeding in the case of wet or garden land half hectare and in the case of dry land one hectare and that the total extent of land held after such grant does not exceed the ceiling area according to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961". By the plain reading of the above said Rule, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not incurred any disability for grant of land on the date of the application and on the date of recommendation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the time of application for grant of land, had attained the age of 18 years and his gross annual income had not exceeded Rupees eight thousand and also the petitioner could have been considered as a bona fide agriculturist. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the time of application for grant of land, had attained the age of 18 years and his gross annual income had not exceeded Rupees eight thousand and also the petitioner could have been considered as a bona fide agriculturist. 9. If the land had been granted to him immediately after the resolution of the committee and the grant certificate had been issued to the petitioner and thereafter if he had secured an employment, the matter would have been different. But in the instant case, there is only a recommendation of the Committee for grant of land in favour of the petitioner but the process of the grant has not been completed in all respects. Before the land could be granted in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has secured an employment. Even after securing the employment, the petitioner had not approached, the concerned authorities immediately for issue of Saguvali Chit in his favour. The petitioner has approached the Tahsildar 25 years, after the recommendation by the Committee to issue a saguvali chit in his favour on the basis of the resolution passed by the Committee. In such circumstances this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner is not entitle for grant since he is gainfully employed as a telephone operator in the same village. When the petitioner is working as a Government employee the petitioner is not eligible for grant of land since his gross annual income exceeds rupees eight thousand. If he is not eligible for grant of land, 25 years after the recommendation of the Committee, he cannot request any authority to proceed with the dharkasth records. If the request of the petitioner has been turned down by the Tahsildar and' the Deputy Commissioner has accepted the same, this Court cannot interfere with such matters. This Court can only say that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar, is without application of mind and the provisions of Land Grant Rules. 10. In the circumstances, the writ petition is rejected.