ORDER : The petitioners in these writ petitions have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the proposal made by the Respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, made in Ref. No.LND725/2014-15 dated 21.2.2015 as per Annexure-A and direction issued by the Respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner to the Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar in Ref.No.LND(1) CR 148/2014-15 dated 6.3.2015 as per Annexure-B and the order passed by the Respondent No.4 – Tahasildar made in Ref. No.LND-05/2014-15 dated 26.3.2015 as per Annexure-C, in so far as rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners & six others, who are all Ex-servicemen made applications for grant of land as per the priority provided under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (Rules’ for short) and the since the said applications were not considered, they filed Writ Petition Nos.3015-3024/2010 before this Court. This Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 3.2.2010 issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to consider the applications of the petitioners and six others for grant of land expeditiously, if not already considered and disposed off. Inspite of the order passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner by the Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 as per Annexure-E rejected the claim of the petitioners and six others on the ground that no land is available for allotment as per the ‘available list of lands’ submitted by the Tahasildar. Against the said Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners and six others have filed Writ Petition Nos.31395-31404/2010 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 12.6.2013 allowed the said writ petitions and quashed the Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioners and six others positively and grant land on priority basis as they are Ex-servicemen. 3. It is further case of the petitioners that aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.6.2013, the State Government filed Writ Appeal Nos.733 & 735-743/2014 before the Division Bench of this Court. When the writ appeals came up before the Division Bench, a submission was made by the learned AGA that if the present petitioners and six others file Form No.1 prescribed under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahasildar would consider them in accordance with law within two months. When the writ appeals came up before the Division Bench, a submission was made by the learned AGA that if the present petitioners and six others file Form No.1 prescribed under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahasildar would consider them in accordance with law within two months. Learned counsel for the present petitioners submitted that the petitioners would file applications in the prescribed form at the earliest and they would withdraw the contempt petitions in CCC Nos.514-523/2014. Recording the submissions of the learned AGA and the learned counsel for the present petitioners, the Writ Appeals came to be disposed off accordingly by the order dated 30.7.2014. 4. When things stood thus, very strangely, the Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure-A) made proposal for grant of land only to six persons and to reject the claim in respect of petitioner Nos.1,3 and 4 on the ground that annual income of each of them exceeds Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore they are not eligible for grant of land, in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Land Grant Rules and to reject the claim in respect of petitioner No.2 on the ground that he is belonging to BSF and therefore, he does not come within the definition of ‘Ex-serviceman’. Pursuant to Annexure-A passed made by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahasildar to grant land only to six persons and rejected the claim of the petitioners as per Annexure-B dated 6.3.2015. Hence the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for. 5. The State Government filed objections and contended that the 1st petitioner – K.B. Naniah produced the Caste & Income Certificate, which was obtained from the Tahasildar on 11.9.2014 showing his income as Rs.1,75,000/- and also he stated before the Revenue Inspector, Bilikere Hobli that presently he is working at BSNL as Security Guard and his income from that is Rs.1,01,000/- and as such his total income is Rs.2,76,000/- and therefore, since the annual income of the 1st petitioner exceeds the limit of Rs.2,00,000/, the proposal of granting land to him has been given up. In so far as the 2nd petitioner – B.N. Shivananjappa is concerned, it is stated that as per the letter of the Deputy Director, Department of Sainik Kalyan & Rehabilitation, Mysuru dated 2.9.2014, the 2nd petitioner belongs to the BSF and therefore he does not come within the definition of Ex.army personnel and therefore, the proposal of granting land to him has been given up. In so far as the 3rd petitioner – K.B. Bheemaiah is concerned, it is stated that on 6.9.2014 the Tahasildar has issued Caste and Income Certificate in his favour showing his income as Rs.1,33,600/- and said Bheemaiah has stated before the Revenue Inspector that he is working as Security Guard in State Bank of Mysuru and his annual income is Rs.3,18,000/- and due to the said reasons as his annual income exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-, the proposal of granting land to him is given up. Lastly, in so far as the 4th petitioner – Ikbal Hussain is concerned, it is stated that he obtained and produced the Caste and Income Certificate for a sum of Rs.1,86,000/- from the Tahasildar on 6.9.2014 and also he has stated before the Revenue Inspector that he is working as Staff Supervisor in KSRTC and his annual income is Rs.4,23,600/- and since his annual income exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-, the proposal of granting land to him is given up as per the Land Grant Rules. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of land. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioners having annual income of more than Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore they are not entitled to grant of land, are erroneous and cannot be sustained. He further contended that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not considered the relevant documents and the Circulars issued by the Government from time to time before rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of land. He further contended that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not considered the relevant documents and the Circulars issued by the Government from time to time before rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of land. He would further contend that the Tahasildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner without verifying the relevant documents and records before the revenue authorities, proceeded to pass the impugned orders and no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to show that they are eligible for grant of land. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition. 8. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned AGA reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections, has contended that the revenue authorities rightly rejected the claim in respect of petitioner Nos.1,3 and 4 on the ground that their annual income exceeds Rs.2,00,000/- and therefore they are not eligible for grant of land, in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Land Grant Rules and rejected the claim in respect of petitioner No.2 on the ground that he is belonging to BSF and therefore, he does not come within the definition of ‘Ex.serviceman’. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that petitioners and six others, who are all Ex.servicemen filed applications for grant of land as per the priority provided under the Land Grant Rules. Since the authorities have not considered their applications, the petitioners and six others have approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3015-3024/2010. This Court after hearing both the parties, by the order dated 3.2.2010 issued a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to consider the applications of the petitioners and six others for grant of land expeditiously, if not already considered and disposed off. Inspite of the order passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner by the Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 as per Annexure-E rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that no land is available for allotment as per the ‘available list of lands’ submitted by the Tahasildar. 10. It is also not in dispute that against the said Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners and six others filed Writ Petition Nos.31395-31404/2010 before this Court. This Court in the said writ petitions considering the entire material on record, has recorded a finding at paragraph-5 as under: 5. 10. It is also not in dispute that against the said Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners and six others filed Writ Petition Nos.31395-31404/2010 before this Court. This Court in the said writ petitions considering the entire material on record, has recorded a finding at paragraph-5 as under: 5. On perusal, it is seen that though there is 3385.01 acres of land available for grant in favour of Ex-servicemen, some extent of land has already been granted in favour of some other Ex.servicemen. But, it appears that there is still some land available for grant. And therefore, it is for the respondent – authorities to identify the remaining extent of land available for grant in favour of the petitioners. Further, the Deputy Commissioner – 3rd respondent to take the report from the Tahsildar concerned in the District and to find out some suitable lands available with the Government for grant of land to the petitioners pursuant to their application/representation pending consideration.” 11. Accordingly, this Court by the order dated 12.6.2013 allowed the said writ petitions and quashed the Endorsement dated 22.7.2010 and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation of the petitioners positively and grant land on priority basis as they are Ex.servicemen. 12. It is also not in dispute that against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.6.2013, the State Government filed Writ Appeal Nos.733 & 735-743/2014. The Division Bench of this Court by the Judgment dated 30.7.2014 while disposing off the appeal filed by the State, has observed as under: 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, after arguing for some time, submits that if respondent Nos.1 to 10 (petitioners in the writ petition) file applications for grant of land in Form No.1 prescribed under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, appellant Nos.3 to 5 would consider them in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt and communicate the decision thereon, to the respective applicants. 2. In view of the above submission, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 10 submit that respondent Nos.1 to 10 would file applications in the prescribed form at the earliest before the concerned appellants and further respondent Nos.1 to 10 would withdraw the contempt petitions in CCC Nos.514523/2014. 3. The aforesaid submissions are placed on record. 2. In view of the above submission, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 10 submit that respondent Nos.1 to 10 would file applications in the prescribed form at the earliest before the concerned appellants and further respondent Nos.1 to 10 would withdraw the contempt petitions in CCC Nos.514523/2014. 3. The aforesaid submissions are placed on record. The Writ Appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above submissions, in modification of the order impugned herein.” 13. Though the Assistant Commissioner by the proposal dated 21.2.2015 identified 2 acres of land in Sy.No.114/4; 2 acres in Sy.No.114/7; and 39 guntas in Sy.No.98/1 and 1 acre in Sy.No.104/1 for allotment to the petitioner Nos.1,4 and 3, rejected their claim mainly on the ground that the annual income of each of them exceeds Rs.2,00,000/and therefore they are not eligible for grant of land, in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Land Grant Rules. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner No.2 on the ground that he is belonging to BSF and therefore does not come within the definition of Ex.serviceman. The said order dated 21.2.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is the subject matter before this Court in the present writ petition. 14. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the Legislature thought it fit to amend the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule4 of the Land Grant Rules w.e.f. 1.3.2019 and as per the amended provisions, lands available for disposal may be granted for agricultural purposes under the Rules to certain persons, provided that in the case of Ex-servicemen and soldiers, land may be granted, if the gross annual income of the applicant does not exceed rupees eight lakhs, so however, there shall be no income limit for grant of land to applicants who are widows or other dependants of soldiers who have died in action and in the case of Ex-servicemen who have become totally handicapped in action and provided further that the extent of land granted to any person shall not together with the land already held by such person exceed the limits prescribed for a sufficient holder in Rule 2(15) of the Land Grant Rules. 15. 15. Sub-rule (8) of Rule8 of the Land Grant Rules also came to be inserted w.e.f. 1.3.2019 and as per the said amendment, an Ex-Serviceman or a soldier shall be entitled to land grant subject to annual income limit as specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4. 16. In view of the aforesaid amendment to the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule4 and insertion of sub-rule (8) of Rule8 of the Land Grant Rules during the pendency of the proceedings, the claim of the petitioners 1, 3 and 4, which has been rejected on the ground that their annual exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-, has to be reconsidered in the light of the above amended provisions and in that case, they are entitled to grant of land. 17. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner rejected his claim mainly on the ground that he is belonging to BSF and therefore, he cannot be categorized as Ex-serviceman. 18. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in its communication dated 24th June 1976 (Annexure-L) addressed to the Chief Secretaries of State Governments and Union Territories except Andaman and Nicobar Islands, has clarified that BSF is a paramilitary force and has completed 10 years of its existence in execution of their primary role of guarding national borders and BSF is deployed on difficult terrains whether it is in the snowy mountains of the borders and dense jungles of REFA or the desert of Rajasthan and for sustaining serving personnel’s moral, this Force deserves the types of facilities and concessions which is presently being extended to ExArmy Jawans by the State Government and accordingly, directed to accord some priority in allotment of land to landless CSF Personnel during the course of redistribution of land in rural. 19. It is also relevant to state that Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by its office Memorandum dated 23rd November 2012 (Annexure-L1) has stated that the Cabinet Committee has approved the proposal of the Ministry to declare the retired Central Armed Police Force Personnel from Central Reserve police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force etc., as ‘ExCentral Armed police Force personnel’ and the State/UT Governments concerned may extend suitable benefits to them on the lines of the benefits extended by the State/UT Governments to the Ex-servicemen of Defence Forces. 20. 20. On perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not considered the clarification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by its communication dated 24th June 1976 (Annexure-L) so also the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 23.11.2012 (Annexure- – L1) stated supra while rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 for grant of land. 21. In view of the amendment to the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule4 and insertion of sub-rule (8) of Rule8 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules during the pendency of the proceedings, the claim of the petitioners 1,3 and 4, which has been rejected on the ground that their annual exceeds Rs.2,00,000/, has to be reconsidered in the light of the amended provisions and in that case, they are entitled to grant of land. Further, in so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, the matter requires reconsideration by the authorities in the light of the clarification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by its communication dated 24th June 1976 as per Annexure-L and the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 23.11.2012 as per Annexure- – L1. 21. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure-A) as well as the order passed by the Deputy commissioner dated 6.3.2015 (Annexure-B) and the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 26.3.2015 (Annexure-C), in so far as rejecting the claim of the petitioners is concerned, are hereby quashed. 21. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure-A) as well as the order passed by the Deputy commissioner dated 6.3.2015 (Annexure-B) and the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 26.3.2015 (Annexure-C), in so far as rejecting the claim of the petitioners is concerned, are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioners for grant of land, in the light of the amendment to the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule – 4 and insertion of sub-rule (8) of Rule8 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules and in the light of the clarification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by its communication dated 24th June 1976 as per Annexure-L and the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India dated 23.11.2012 as per Annexure- – L1 and pass appropriate orders, keeping in view the order dated 12.6.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.31395-31404/2010 and so also the Judgment dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.733 & 735743/2004, strictly in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.