JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is sought to be filed in public interest, assailing the order dated 19-1-2013, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga. A prayer is also sought against the respondents, restraining them from in any manner utilising the land in possession of the Horticultural Research Station, Theerthahalli for any other purpose. 2. By a Government Order dated 12-12-2007, a total extent of 42.30 acres out of 43.33 acres in Sy.No.120 (old No.87) of Yedehalli Village, Theerthahalli Taluk, Shimoga District of Seebinakere Horticultural Region, was transferred to the Agricultural University, Bangalore, to establish an Area Research Station. The possession of the said land was handed over to the Agricultural University, Bangalore, on 1-1-2008. Thereafter, this land has come under the jurisdiction of a composite Horticultural University, Bagalkot. An extent of 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.120 was granted to the Director, Karnataka Department of Fire and Emergency Services. When the matter stood thus, the 7th respondent-District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, by letter dated 16-10-2012, sought grant of land for construction of a Court Complex in Theerthahalli and an extent of three Acres in Sy.No.120 has been regranted for construction of Court Complex by order dated 19-1-2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, which is assailed in this writ petition. 3. It is contended for the petitioner that the land in question belongs to the Agricultural University, which is used for establishing an Areca Research Station and the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to grant the three acres of land for the purpose of construction of Court Complex thereon. There is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution and that there is also violation of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 is the submission. 4. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon three decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the material on record, we note that Theerthahalli Village came under the purview of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. Therefore, by Government Order dated 12-12-2007, 42.30 acres of land in Theerthahalli Village, was transferred to the Agricultural University of Bangalore, for the purpose of setting up an Areca Research Station. Therefore, by Government Order dated 12-12-2007, 42.30 acres of land in Theerthahalli Village, was transferred to the Agricultural University of Bangalore, for the purpose of setting up an Areca Research Station. Therefore, by order dated 12-12-2007, permissive possession of an extent of 42.30 acres of land was given to the Agricultural University, Bangalore, for the purpose of establishing an areca Research Station by the State Government. The transfer of land made by the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of construction of a Court Complex cannot be held to the illegal, as the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to make such a transfer having regard to the Government Circular No. RD 11 LGW 1970. That apart, Article 300-A of the Constitution would not be applicable to the present case, since the said Article states that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. Therefore, the said Article grants a Constitutional right in respect of private property belonging to a private person and the same would not apply to the present case where the property belonging to the State Government is in possession of the University. 6. In fact, in the case of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar and Others v State of Gujarat and Another, ( AIR 1995 SC 142 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596) it has been stated that Article 300-A gets attracted to an acquisition or taking possession of a private property by necessary implication for a public purpose, in accordance with law made by the Parliament or of State Legislature, a rule of statutory order having force of law. Moreover, it is also stated therein, that where deprivation of property is for a public purpose, the same would not amount to acquisition or possession in violation of Article 300-A. 7. In Meghmala and Others v G. Narasimha Reddy and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 383 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 878 : 2010 AIR SCW 5281) the Supreme Court held that a person in illegal occupation of land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed under the law and even a trespasser cannot be evicted forcibly. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Similarly, in Smt. Elizebath Samuel Aaron and Others v State of Kerala and Others, (AIR 1991 Ker 162) a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has opined that Article 300-A has to be understood as a limitation on the power of the State to take away private property. The same is also not applicable to the present case. 9. Having regard to the facts of the present case, none of the aforesaid judgments are applicable and reliance placed on the said decisions are wholly misplaced. 10. The decision taken by the Revenue Authorities to transfer a portion of the land granted to one authority for a public purpose, to another public authority for another public purpose cannot be assailed by way or a Public Interest Litigation, particularly in the absence of even any allegation of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power or violation of any legal provision. The Land Grant Rules, 1969 are also not applicable to the instant case as the Rules apply only when a grant is made to an individual person. The State Government in the instant case had given permissive possession to the University in respect of certain land for establishing an Areca Research Station by order dated 12-12-2007. The University, by the that order of the State Government was not conferred with ownership of such lands. Re-granting an extent of three acres of the said lands for the purpose of construction of a Court Complex, does not amount to deprivation of property as far as the Agriculture University is concerned in the context of Article 300-A the Constitution. In fact, the University has not made any grievance with regard to re-granting of three acres of land for the construction of a Court Complex. The petitioners, who have sought to agitated the issue by way of public interest by filing this writ petition are in fact, do not appear to be serving any public interest in absence of any grievance being made by the University. Unfortunately, valuable public time of the Court has been spent in hearing this matter. There is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, we refrain from imposing costs.