ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 24-8-2012 passed by the first respondent-Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore whereby the petitioner is directed to vacate the land which is in its un-authorised occupation to the extent of 19.5 guntas in Sy. No. 28 of Muddaiahnapalya Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is in un-authorised occupation of 19.5 guntas of land in the aforesaid land wherein the petitioner has constructed asbestos sheet house to run a Charitable Trust in certain extent and rest of the land is utilized for playground and other cultural activities and growing vegetables and flowers. The petitioner sought for regularisation and to develop the same for social activities to look after the orphan children by filing representation before the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The petitioner submits that the application for regularisation is pending consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the Tahsildar has ordered for eviction under Section 94(3) and 94(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and further ordered to keep in abeyance the application of the petitioner for regularisation. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Tahsildar. 3. The learned High Court Government Pleader represented respondents 1 and 2 and filed statement of objections contending that the petitioner has filed proper application before the Deputy Commissioner. Admittedly, the petitioner is in un-authorised occupation of the land in question. The land is within 10 k.ms. from the limits of B.B.M.P. and as such the said land cannot be granted under the provisions of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 thereunder. Under the provisions of Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, any person, who unlawfully enters or occupies on any Government land with the intention of holding the Government land shall be liable for penal action and such person liable to be evicted from such unauthorised occupation/encroachment of the Government land. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Charitable Trust engaged in providing shelter, education and cultural facilities to the destitute and orphaned children, economically backward, poor, rural and orphan individuals for which the Government ought to have extended its helping hand by granting the land in occupation of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned HCGP submits that the petitioner has not submitted proper application under relevant provisions of law before the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the said application cannot be considered and the Tahsildar is empowered to pass the impugned order. In the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. It is found in the impugned order that land in an extent of 32 acres was leased in favour of Sri K.C. Krishna Reddy for quarrying lease. At that time, sheds were constructed for the purpose of quarry workers. The said lease was not renewed thereby the sheas were left as it is and the land was vacated. Taking advantage of the said position, the petitioner occupied the same after repairing the shed and utilised the same for providing shelter to such of the persons as mentioned above. Though the work of the petitioner could be appreciable, it cannot be recognised in the eye of law and no vested right of the petitioner is violated to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Chako and Another v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga and Others, 2002 (3) Kar. L.J. 175, wherein it is held that eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar when occupant's application is pending consideration by Committee is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There the farmers were in unauthorised occupation and filed application for regularisation. Here in the present case, the petitioner is a Charitable Trust which is in unauthorised occupation of gomal land. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There the farmers were in unauthorised occupation and filed application for regularisation. Here in the present case, the petitioner is a Charitable Trust which is in unauthorised occupation of gomal land. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the Tahsildar is empowered to evict the unauthorised occupants of a Government land, which cannot be found fault with. But the Tahsildar has no power to keep in abeyance the application of the petitioner for regularisation/grant pending before the Deputy Commissioner. With these observations, the writ petition is rejected.