Judgment 1. Government lands are public properties in our country and therefore any one can go and occupy it and assert right over it, though the occupation is unauthorized, irregular, illegal and against law as pointed out by Sri R. Omkumar, learned AGA. Nevertheless such illegal acts command a premium, as such persons are enabled by law in terms of the provisions of Section 94(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and it has become the practice of the day, for violators of law to grab any open vacant government land and to assert rights over it! 2. The practice of granting government lands particularly, non-alienated land, which was prevalent during the British rule, for the purpose of bringing such lands within the purview of assessment and to generate revenue to the State, even at the cost of annihilation of pristine, virgin, unique forests and biospheres and has continued unabated even after independence. 3. What with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the present statutory provisions which regulates the grant of lands, having remained very static as had prevailed earlier, under which a collector/Deputy Commissioner / his subordinates/ sub-collector/ Asst. Commissioner or even a Tahsildar had the power to grant lands left and right and such actions were encouraged by Government as it was productive for the State, a foreign power who had colonized our country here, for sustaining themselves as perpetrators of their tyrannic rule though, the initial entry was to make profits out of trade with us, but later, annexed the State itself continued the object of making profits even by a rule rather misrule and governance of our country to their convenience and benefit. 4. Though we attained independence wayback in the year 1947 and also became a republic in the year 1950, not much change have taken place and we have not been truly liberated nor attained freedom! 5. 4. Though we attained independence wayback in the year 1947 and also became a republic in the year 1950, not much change have taken place and we have not been truly liberated nor attained freedom! 5. The very independence is lost due to rule of roost and with lack of perception and imagination on the part of our drafters and law makers, laws made to sub-serve the needs and wants of a foreign government have continued and instead of a foreign power carrying on trade promoting rule over the citizens of our country, and though we style ourselves as a democratic republic, the feudalistic ways have continued unabated, the poor and the gullible continue to suffer; even victimized whereas the rich, the affluent and the powerful always escape the rigors of law, while the illegal, irregular acts committed by the rich and powerful does not visit them with any deterrent consequences. Yet another irony is, it is only such people who rule roost and are in pivotal positions in all walks of life. 6. Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (KLR Act) is a tailor made provision to encourage, lawlessness and though it appears a committee has been set up after the matter had received scrutiny by the judiciary and as directed in KUMARI MADHURI PATIL v. ADDL COMMISSIONER [ (1994) 6 SCC 241 )] case, wherein the Supreme Court had issued some guidelines in the matter of issue of caste certificates to persons claiming benefit or reservation, to be examined by multi personale committee and on the same line is constituted regularisation committees for the regularisation of unauthorized occupation by the cultivators actually cultivating the lands etc., on the reality side, nothing much appears to have happened. 7. 7. Writ petitioner claims that he is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of 4 acres 19 guntas in Re-Survey No.46 of Shivapura Village, Hollalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, the subject land though is part of 25 acres of land in survey number 46 reserved for the growth of trees from which tapping can be made for the production of today, the inebriated liquid, which is patronized by the socially depressed class and further that the petitioner had filed an application under the provisions of Section 94(A) of the KLR Act to the Tahsildar, Holalkere Taluk of Chitradurga District, but submission of Sri K. Rama Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application has remained blissfully intact, without even being considered or ordered by the committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation, but the present grievance of the writ petitioner is that in the meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner of the District has chosen to pass an order purporting to be on the representation of the villagers to reserve the precise extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.46 for the purpose of a burial ground to the benefit of all sections of the community in the village, exercising power under Section 71 of the KLR Act. 8. Submission of Sri K Rama Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the boundaries mentioned in respect of the land reserved for such purpose as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the land of the petitioner is also included and it is for this reason the petitioner is aggrieved as the reservation while so made is in respect of the land which is in possession of the petitioner and from which the petitioner is eking out his livelihood. 9. An appeal/revision to the Regional Commissioner in LND.CR.1/2009-10 being not very productive for the petitioner as in terms of the order dated 19.12.2010 the Regional Commissioner has dismissed the revision/appeal, the present writ petition by the aggrieved unauthorized occupant of the land praying for the following relief:- “Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and thereby set-aside the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.LND/CR/1/2009-10 as per Annexure-A and also the order dated 08-02-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District in proceedings NO.LND/CR291/2009-10 as per Annexure-B.” 10. Submission of Sri K Ram Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is sufficient land available not only in the very survey number, but in other government lands in the village, identifying only the petitioners land for the so called purpose of reserving it for burial ground is nothing short of victimizing the petitioner and therefore, while this Court should exercise its discretionary power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ restraining the authorities from giving effect to the order passed under Section 71 of the KLR Act, and to further direct the committee to dispose of the petitioner’s application in the meanwhile. 11. Submission of Sri R Omkumar, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, is that regularization of unauthorized occupation and cultivation of government lands is in the discretion of the committee, therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued and even in terms of Rule 108 I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules Chapter 13 A, reserved lands, which had been reserved for specific purposes cannot be regularized even assuming there is unauthorized occupation of such lands and therefore, there is impediment for the committee to regularize the lands, even assuming the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation and cultivation. 12. Submission of Sri R Omkumar is justified. A writ of mandamus can be issued only when a person has legal right or a constitutional right which is in any way violated or the exercise is prevented by a deliberate, careless inaction on the part of a public authority having a corresponding duty to perform vis-à-vis the right of the citizen. 13. In the first instance, though provisions of Section 94(A) of the KLR Act is pointed out as an enabling provision, it is a provision made subject to the Rules and therefore, regularization aspect can never be de hors the rules. 14. 13. In the first instance, though provisions of Section 94(A) of the KLR Act is pointed out as an enabling provision, it is a provision made subject to the Rules and therefore, regularization aspect can never be de hors the rules. 14. When such is the legal position irrespective of the factual position which is also not certain before this Court, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the present case, either for directing the committee to examine the petitioner’s application or even to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, and therefore it is left intact inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner has such power in terms of Section 71 of the KLR Act and nothing is made out by the petitioner to indicate that the power is misused or abused by the Deputy Commissioner. 15. In the circumstances, writ petition is dismissed. A writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari cannot be issued as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to avail his rights and remedies, if any, elsewhere in accordance with law.