Order Heard Sri Laxman T Mantagani, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri Ravi V Hosmani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is, Gurlhosur village has been submerged in Malaprabha project and villagers of said village have been rehabilitated at Ramapur site at Saundatti and land bearing Sy.No.18/B situated at said Gurlhosur village measuring 2 acres had been earlier reserved for burial ground and after shifting of said village to Ramapur, burial ground had lost its characteristic and as such, same having been left unused and as such it was being cultivated by father of petitioner by investing huge amounts for more than 35 years and on the demise of petitioner’s father, petitioner has continued to cultivate the same and in view of cultivation being done in said land, notice for recovery of land revenue came to be issued in Form No.37 on 19.07.1970 by the then Revenue Inspector as per Annexure-B to the deceased father of petitioner and he had paid land revenue and had been cultivating said land. It is also contended that father of petitioner had sought for grant of said land and based on such prayer, Tahsildar, Saundatti – second respondent had directed the father of petitioner to appear for the enquiry by fixing the date of hearing as 31.08.1970 as per Annexure-C and no action was taken by second respondent and during the pendency of said application before second respondent, father of petitioner expired and as such, proceedings before second respondent came to be closed. 3. It is also contended that petitioner has continued to cultivate the land on demise of his father and certificate issued by Village Accountant as per Annexure-D would evidence this fact and seeking for grant of said land, petitioner has filed an application in Form No.1 on 02.06.2011 and as such, he requests for issue of mandamus to second respondent to allot the land bearing Sy.No.18/B measuring 2 acres situated at Gurlhosur village, Saundatti Taluk. 4. Per contra, State has filed objections contending interalia that land in question being a burial ground, there is a bar under Rule 108I of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 for grant of such land either to petitioner or anyone and as such, petitioner is not entitled for said land being granted in his favour. 5. 4. Per contra, State has filed objections contending interalia that land in question being a burial ground, there is a bar under Rule 108I of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 for grant of such land either to petitioner or anyone and as such, petitioner is not entitled for said land being granted in his favour. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers as well as statement of objections filed by respondents, it would indicate that under Rule 108I of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ‘Rules’) certain lands cannot be granted namely lands described in the revenue records as Devarakadu, Urduve, Gunduthop Tankbed, Phut Kharab halla, burial ground are such of those lands which in the opinion of Government is required for public purpose. Rule 108I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules reads as under: “108I. Certain lands not to be granted (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this chapter, lands assigned for special purposes under Section 71 of the Act, and lands described in revenue records, as Devarakadu, Urduve, Gunduthop Tankbed, Phut Kharab halla, burial grounds and such lands, which in the opinion of the Government is required for public purpose, shall not be granted: Provided that the provisions of this rules shall not apply to lands setapart for free pasturage under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which will be governed by Rule 97. (2) xxx” Thus, sub-rule (1) of Rule 108I of the Rules would be a clear bar for allotting the land which has been reserved for burial ground. As per the revenue records the land in question is a burial ground. 6. However, it is not in dispute that on account of shifting of inhabitants of Gurlhosur village to Ramapur, burial ground is also said to have been abandoned and not being used and as such, deceased father of petitioner is stated to have been cultivating said land. As per the revenue records the land in question is a burial ground. 6. However, it is not in dispute that on account of shifting of inhabitants of Gurlhosur village to Ramapur, burial ground is also said to have been abandoned and not being used and as such, deceased father of petitioner is stated to have been cultivating said land. In the light of certificate having been issued by Village Accountant, Gurlhosur as per Annexure-D certifying thereunder that petitioner has been cultivating the said land in question, it would suffice if a direction is issued to respondents to examine the claim of petitioner as to whether said land having lost the characteristic of burial ground is available for being granted and if so, respondents are at liberty to consider claim of petitioner and proceed to pass orders thereon in accordance with provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and Land Grant Rules governing grant of such land. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Sri Ravi V Hosmani, learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.