ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. W.P. No. 13664 of 2015 is filed by Sri S. Sundaresh, who is the son of a freedom fighter, namely, late Suryanarayanarao. His case in brief is that his father was earlier allotted the land measuring 4 acres at Sy. No. 76 of Sadaramangala Village. On account of a series of litigations, the said land grant could not be confirmed in favour of Suryanarayanarao. He died in the year 1989. On his legal representative (the present petitioner) continuing the battle for the grant of land under freedom fighters' (political sufferers) quota, the Government granted 4 acres of land at Sy. No. 129 of Sreegandhadakavalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. He has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus to effect the mutation entries in his favour in respect of the land and to hand over the possession of the land to him. Ms. Nalina Mayagowda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the 4 acres of land is taken over from the third respondent-Golden Valley Education Trust (hereinafter called as 'the said Trust'), the earlier grantee/lessee. She submits that on the expiry of the lease period, the granted land automatically re-vests with the Government. She submits that the revenue records show that the land in question is a gomal land. She submits that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.6.00 crores with the Government on 17-7-2013. 2. W.P. Nos. 2454 and 15058 of 2015 are filed by the said Trust. In W.P. No. 2454 of 2015 raising the challenge to the Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated 20-1-2010 (Annexure-S) cancelling the grant of land measuring 15 acres standing at Sy. No. 51 of Sreegandhadakavalu Village and the order dated 30-12-2014 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('K.A.T.' for short), upholding the Special Deputy Commissioner's order. 3. In W.P. No. 15058 of 2015 the challenge is raised to the Government Order dated 22-4-2013 (Annexure-A) granting 4 acres of land out of 15 acres, earlier leased to the said Trust, to Sri S. Sundaresh (respondent 5 in W.P. No. 15058 of 2015 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 13664 of 2015). 4. Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 2454 and 15058 of 2015 submits that the said Trust was not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. 4. Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 2454 and 15058 of 2015 submits that the said Trust was not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. He submits that the relevant materials were not taken into account by the Special Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, the said Trust was put on notice, but the reply submitted by it is not even referred to, much less considered. 5. He submits that the impugned order is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He submits that the exercise of power is traced to Rule 19(4)(a)(ix) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 ('the said Rules' for short). But the provisions contained therein have no application whatsoever for the facts of the present case. He submits that when the Government grants the land, the Government alone is competent to rescind, withdraw or cancel the grant. The Special Deputy Commissioner does not have the competence to cancel the grant. 6. He submits that no summary enquiry under Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('K.L.R. Act' for short) has taken place. He submits that the authorities have not resorted to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ('Public Premises Act' for short) into motion. 7. He submits that the said Trust has made an application for the renewal of the grant. Without passing any order on the renewal application, the land grant has come to be cancelled. As far as the grant of the land to Sundaresh is concerned, it is the contention of Sri Sampath Kumar that the land in question is a converted land; conversion fee is also paid. As it has lost its agricultural character long ago, it is not available for being granted to anybody at this juncture. 8. The learned Counsel submits that the order granting the land to Sundaresh is without the application of mind. It stipulates that the land has to be used for the purpose for which it is allotted. But nowhere it is specified that for what purpose it is granted to the said Sundaresh. He submits that there is no clear demarcation of the boundary. It stipulates that the land has to be used for the purpose for which it is allotted. But nowhere it is specified that for what purpose it is granted to the said Sundaresh. He submits that there is no clear demarcation of the boundary. He asserts that the petitioners in occupation and possession of the 12 acres of the leased land and that the Vokkaligara Sangha is in possession of the remaining extent land. 9. Sri A.G. Shivanna, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the said Trust was indeed put on notice. There is no requirement of law that the lessee or grantee has to be afforded with an opportunity of hearing. He submits that the petitioner's renewal application is rejected, as is evident from the order passed by the K.A.T. 10. Sri D.L. Jagadeesh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Lohitaswa Banakar for the fifth respondent-Vokkaligara Sangha in W.P. No. 2454 of 2015 submits that the said Sangha continues to be in possession and occupation of the 3 acres of land, which is not even disputed by any of the parties. He submits that this position is made amply clear by the Division Bench of this Court in The Golden Valley Educational Trust, Oorgam, Kolar Gold Fields, Kolar District v. The Vokkaligara Sangha, V.V. Puram, Bangalore, R.F.A. No. 1262 of 2006, dated 25-9-2013. 11. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. 12. On hearing the learned Advocates, the following three questions fall for my consideration: (i) Whether the order dated 20-1-2010 (Annexure-S) in W.P. No. 2454 of 2015 cancelling the lease of lands by the Special Deputy Commissioner and its confirmation by the K.A.T., by its order dated 30-12-2014 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. 413 of 2010 are sustainable? (ii) Whether the order dated 22-4-2013 (Annexure-A) in W.P. No. 15058 of 2015) granting 4 acres of land to Sri Sundaresh is sustainable? (iii) What relief can be given to Sri Sundaresh (petitioner in W.P. No. 13664 of 2015)? In Re: Question No. (i): 13. Admittedly, 15 acres of land at Sy. No. 51 (presently renumbered as 129) of Sreegandhadakavalu Village was granted to the said Trust on lease basis on 12-1-1967 for a period of 30 years. The lease period expired on 12-1-1997. Thereafter the lease is not renewed. In Re: Question No. (i): 13. Admittedly, 15 acres of land at Sy. No. 51 (presently renumbered as 129) of Sreegandhadakavalu Village was granted to the said Trust on lease basis on 12-1-1967 for a period of 30 years. The lease period expired on 12-1-1997. Thereafter the lease is not renewed. The status of the said Trust on the expiration of the lease period would be that of a tenant holding over and liable to be evicted at Will. The Revenue Authorities could have just passed the order either under the Public Premises Act or ought to have held a summary enquiry invoking Section 39 of the K.L.R. Act requiring the said Trust to vacate and hand over the possession. But the Revenue Authorities did not resort to any of these courses prescribed by law and known to law for taking over the possession of the land in question. The Special Deputy Commissioner passed the order cancelling the lease on the ground that the lessee Trust has violated the conditions of the grant. On the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease, the lease agreement was liable to be cancelled, but only during the currency or subsistence of the agreement, that is, it could have done so any time before the expiry of 30 years from 12-1-1967. 14. In the instant case, no proceedings whatsoever are initiated either under Public Premises Act or under Section 39 of the K.L.R. Act. The impugned order cancelling the lease is passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the said Trust. What is involved is a party's right in the immovable property. It is necessary that a party, who has been in possession of the property for over 40 years is required to be heard before he/it is called upon to vacate and surrender its possession. 15. The impugned order is liable to be quashed, as it is not reflective of the application of mind. Although the said Trust was called upon to submit the reply to the proposed notice of canceling the lease and the said Trust has indeed submitted the reply, the impugned order dated 20-1-2010 is silent on that aspect of the matter. There is not even a reference to the said Trust's reply, much less the consideration of the reply in the impugned order. There is not even a reference to the said Trust's reply, much less the consideration of the reply in the impugned order. Further, the said Trust has made an application for the renewal of lease. It ought to have been considered before the passing of the impugned order dated 20-1-2010. 16. The impugned order states that it is passed in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 19(4)(a)(ix) of the said Rules. The relevant provisions contained in the said Rules read as follows: "19. Lease of lands.-(1) to (3) ....... (4)(a) Lease of lands under sub-rule (1) for agricultural purposes shall be subject to the following conditions also.-- (i) to (v) ............. Explanation.--.......... (vi) the lease shall be liable to be terminated when registration of the institution is cancelled; (vii) the lessee shall at all times allow the Deputy Commissioner or any person authorised by him to inspect the land to satisfy himself that the conditions of the lease are not violated; (viii) if the land or a portion of the land is required for any public purpose, the authority sanctioning the lease can resume the land after issue of three months, notice to the lessee; (ix) the lease shall be liable to be terminated for contravening any of the aforesaid conditions." 17. The perusal of the afore-extracted provisions reveals that none of the situations enumerated in items (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 19(4)(a) are present in the instant case. It is not even the case of the Government that the registration of the institution is cancelled. As stated earlier, the question of cancelling the lease for the violation of the conditions of the lease does not arise on the expiry of the lease period. The impugned order does not say that the land in question is required for any public purpose. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned order dated 20-1-2010 (Annexure-S) for not noticing the above said aspects of the matter. The K.A.T's order dated 30-12-2014 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. 413 of 2010 is also not supportable and sustainable and therefore it is also quashed. 19. The allied question would be what credence can be given to the claim of the Government to have taken over the possession of 15 acres of land from the said Trust. The K.A.T's order dated 30-12-2014 (Annexure-A) in Appeal No. 413 of 2010 is also not supportable and sustainable and therefore it is also quashed. 19. The allied question would be what credence can be given to the claim of the Government to have taken over the possession of 15 acres of land from the said Trust. This question is to be examined assuming that it was open to the Government to take over the possession without passing the impugned order dated 20-1-2010. 20. Sri A.G. Shivanna has secured the records and placed the same before the Court. On being asked as to whether the possession mahazar was preceded by the issuance of any notice to the said Trust to vacate and handover the vacant possession to the Government, he submits that the records do not reveal that such a notice has come to be issued. It is necessary that somebody, who is in possession of any immovable property for over 40 years, has to be issued the notice to handover the possession. The failure to issue the notice creates the doubt as to whether it is actual possession or paper possession. Further, the perusal of the spot mahazar shows that there is much that is wanting on the part of the Revenue Officers: (a) The mahazar contains the names and signatures of the mahazar witnesses. Their addresses are not furnished and hence the identity of the mahazar witnesses is not ascertainable. (b) The mahazar states that the Government has taken over the possession of 15 acres of lands. All the parties, including the Government, agree that the 3 acres out of 15 acres of land continue to be in possession of Vokkaligara Sangha. Even the Division Bench's judgment dated 25-9-2013 in R.F.A. No. 1262 of 2006 has declared the said Trust as the leaseholder of only 12 acres. (c) The mahazar states that the Special Deputy Commissioner was present, but he has not signed the mahazar. 21. Because of all these infirmities, I find it hard to act on the ipse dixit of the Government that the possession of the land is taken over from the said Trust. In Re: Question No. (ii): 22. Before granting the land, the Government has to notify the land available in any village for observing for disposal the reservation in Rule 5 of the said Rules. In Re: Question No. (ii): 22. Before granting the land, the Government has to notify the land available in any village for observing for disposal the reservation in Rule 5 of the said Rules. The Government does not appear to have notified the land available for disposal in any village. On ad hoc basis the applications are received and land grants are made. It is not even known what is the total extent of the land granted to the freedom fighters (political sufferers) for whom 10% reservation is made. 23. It is also not known whether the said Trust falls in the category of 25% reservation of lands, meant for 'Others' and whether it can claim any priority, as mentioned in Rule 6 of the said Rules. 24. It is profitable to refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others v. Union of India and Others, (2012) 3 SCC 1 , wherein it is held that the natural resources are national assets. A duly publicised auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method. First come, first served is likely to be misused by the unscrupulous people. State largesse cannot be disturbed without complying with the requirements of public law. 25. Be it as it may, the question is whether the land measuring 4 acres out of 15 acres of the land in question could have been allotted to Sundaresh. If Sundaresh has the eligibility, the land can be granted to him on such terms as are permissible in law. In the instant case, without securing the vacant possession of the land from the erstwhile lessee, a portion of the said land is granted. 26. The grant order, inter alia, contains the condition that the grantee shall utilise the granted land for the purpose for which it is allotted. But the purpose is not even vaguely mentioned. 27. When it has been the reply of the said Trust that it has got the land converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, the Revenue Authorities ought to have examined whether the land is indeed converted or has remained agricultural and thereafter examine whether the law permits the grant of the converted land. There has been no application of mind on that count too. 28. There has been no application of mind on that count too. 28. For all the aforesaid reasons, I quash the Government order dated 22-4-2013 (Annexure-A in W.P. No. 15058 of 2015), by virtue of which the land measuring 4 acres is granted to S. Sundaresh, the petitioner in W.P. No. 13664 of 2015. In Re: Question No. (iii): 29. At the outset it has to be observed that the conduct of the petitioner in W.P. No. 13664 of 2015 - Sundaresh is absolutely flawless and blameless. His father, Suryanarayanarao was a freedom fighter. He was allotted the land under the political sufferers quota. His father was earlier allotted 4 acres at Survey No. 76 of Sadaramangala Village. As the said land came to be compulsorily acquired for the purpose and benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, the allotment was withdrawn. The agitating of Suryanarayanarao's entitlement for the grant of the land is now carried forward by son and L.R., that is the present writ petitioner. His bona fides are also not in dispute inasmuch as he has mobilised and deposited Rs.6 Crores with the Government towards the allotment consideration. 30. As 4 acres of land were not available for being granted to Sundaresh as on the date of the grant, the grant in favour of Sundaresh is not upholdable. The Government is directed to hold the summary enquiry under Section 39 of the KLR Act or initiate the proceedings under the Public Premises Act against the said Trust. If, as and when the eviction order is passed and the possession is taken over from the said Trust, the Government can regrant the land in favour of Sundaresh. If Sundaresh is in no position to wait, then the Government has to willynilly identify an alternative land, grant it to Sundaresh and give to him its hassle free possession. The exercise of either regranting the land to Sundaresh after taking the possession from the said Trust or of granting an alternative land to him has to be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of six months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. No order as to costs.