ORDER : 1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the grant order dated 24.01.2013 passed in RD 82 LGS 2012 by respondent No.1 - vide Annexure-AA, whereby respondent No.1 exercising powers under Rule 19 (1) and (3) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for brevity "the Rules") granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.123 situated at Somanikoppa village (for brevity, "the subject land") on lease basis for a period of 30 years on the memorandum of request dated 10.04.2012 submitted by respondent No.5 - Sri Kanakadasa Seva Trust by remitting the lease amount of Rs.1,10,000/- on 19.02.2013 towards the lease. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that their father late Khaji Abdul Azeez purchased the land adjacent to subject land i.e., 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.123 (new Sy. No.137) situated at Somanikoppa village from one Savithramma vide registered Sale Deed dated 23.09.1971 and while purchasing the said land, said Savithramma handed over possession of subject land i.e., 2 acres on the eastern side, since then they were in possession and cultivation of total 4 acres 36 guntas of land. The petitioners invested huge amount and grown the coconut plants in the subject land. After demise of petitioners' father, the name of the petitioners mother Shahajadbhi was entered in the revenue records in respect of 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.123 and upon introduction of Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1991, the petitioners made an application to regularize the unauthorized cultivation of the subject land, which was, however, dismissed and subsequent to that they made an application under Form-53, which is pending for consideration. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the year 1992, the Shivamogga Urban Development Authority made an effort to acquire the subject land which was objected to by the mother of petitioners. Thereafter, the proceedings for acquisition of subject land were dropped. Since 1974-75 to 1978-79 the petitioners' father name was mentioned in column No.12 of RTC and later on, it was omitted by the concerned authorities even though the petitioners were in continuous possession and cultivation of the subject land. 4. Thereafter, the proceedings for acquisition of subject land were dropped. Since 1974-75 to 1978-79 the petitioners' father name was mentioned in column No.12 of RTC and later on, it was omitted by the concerned authorities even though the petitioners were in continuous possession and cultivation of the subject land. 4. Things stood thus, respondent No.5 submitted a memorandum of request dated 10.04.2012 to respondent No.1 to allot subject land to respondent No.5 for the purpose of developing their educational trust to the backward class students. After considering the application and the information given by the Revenue Department and Deputy Commissioner, the government recommended for allotment of subject land to respondent No.5 on 30 years lease basis and accordingly granted the land vide order dated 24.01.2013 passed in RD 82 LGS 2012. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Heard Sri S.V. Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Vinod Kumar., learned counsel for respondent No.5. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the father of petitioners late Khaji Abdul Azeez purchased 2 acres 36 guntas of land from one Savithramma and while purchasing the same, his vendor Savithramma handed over possession of subject land and since then, they were in possession and cultivation of total 4 acres 36 guntas of land and after huge investment they have grown coconut trees. They filed O.S.No.868/2012 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of subject land against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and subsequently, respondent No.5 got impleaded. In the said suit, the Trial Court observed that the petitioners are in settled possession of the subject land, but they have failed to prove their title over the subject land by way of adverse possession and partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners by granting permanent injunction against the defendants/respondent Nos.1 to 5. Challenging the same, petitioners filed R.A.No.49/2024 and respondent No.5 filed R.A.No.48/2024 and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners for the relief of declaration and set aside the permanent injunction against the defendants/respondent No.5 without considering the claim of the petitioners for adverse possession of subject land and allowed R.A.No.48/2024. 7. Challenging the same, petitioners filed R.A.No.49/2024 and respondent No.5 filed R.A.No.48/2024 and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners for the relief of declaration and set aside the permanent injunction against the defendants/respondent No.5 without considering the claim of the petitioners for adverse possession of subject land and allowed R.A.No.48/2024. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were in continuous cultivation and possession of subject land and an application was also made by the mother of petitioners under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1991, to regularize unauthorized cultivation of subject land and though the said application was rejected, the mother of petitioners made a subsequent application under Form-53, which is still pending for consideration. He also contended that respondent No.1-State Government has no authority to grant the land in favour of respondent No.5 as per Rule 19(1) and (3) of the Rules, and the only authority to grant the land is respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. 8. He further contended that the grant made in favour of respondent No.5 is not in accordance with law and the government without obtaining the availability list of lands, hurriedly granted the land in favour of the respondent No.5. Respondent No.3 has not followed the procedure and failed to consider the fact that the Commissioner, Urban Development Authority, Shivamogga, has forwarded a communication to respondent No.1 not to acquire the subject land since the petitioners were in cultivation and possession of subject land and there exit coconut trees vide communication dated 10.06.1994. Based on the said communication, respondent No.1 passed a gazette notification dated 01.12.1994 and dropped the acquisition proceedings in respect of subject land. According to the learned counsel, ever since the petitioners were in continuous possession of the subject land. In such circumstances, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, with the vested interest granted the land in favour of respondent No.5. Hence, the grant is liable be to set aside. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the subject land was a lake and subsequently, it lost its character and became a pada land and there is no dispute that the same is a government land and the petitioners filed application for grant of the same in their favour. However, their prayer was rejected way back in the year 2012. However, their prayer was rejected way back in the year 2012. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner has recommended to grant the same in favour of respondent No.5 on lease basis for a period of 30 years for construction of building for educational purpose. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the grant made in favour of respondent No.5 since their claim in respect of subject land was rejected and thereafter, a suit in O.S No.862/2012 filed by them for adverse possession was also dismissed. Though their prayer for injunction was granted, the same was set aside in R.A.No.49/2024 by the First Appellate Court. In such circumstance, respondent No.1 has rightly granted the subject land in favour of respondent No.5. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The learned HCGP, by supporting the impugned order, submits that in view of rejection of petitioners' claim in respect of the subject land, the petitioners have no locus standi to question the grant made in favour of respondent No.5 by filing this writ petition. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 12. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the subject land is a government land. The petitioners contended that they acquired the subject land during the year 1971 when their father purchased the land adjacent to subject land i.e., 2 acres 36 guntas from one Savithramma. On perusal of the Sale Deed executed in favour of the petitioners in respect of 2 acres 36 guntas, there is absolutely no iota of evidence forthcoming to show that the vendor of the petitioners has handed over possession of subject land to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the RTC of the year 1974-75, depicts the name of the father of petitioners in Column No.12. On perusal of said entries, only for the year 1974-75 to 1978- 79 the name of the father of the petitioners is forthcoming. Admittedly, no materials has been placed by the petitioners on what basis or strength those entries were effected in the RTCs though the land belongs to the government. Hence, it could be presumed that those entries were not lawfully made. Admittedly, no materials has been placed by the petitioners on what basis or strength those entries were effected in the RTCs though the land belongs to the government. Hence, it could be presumed that those entries were not lawfully made. The RTCs' of the year 1994-95 till 2017-18, reflects the name of the government and government tank both in column Nos.9 and 12. Further, the subject land is classified as "Kere" vide circular No.RD160LGT2002 dated 17.02.2003. Nevertheless, the claim of the petitioners for regularization of the unauthorized cultivation of the subject land was rejected by the Committee vide order dated 31.10.2002. Apart from that, the subject land falls within the radius of 5 kilometers of CMC vide government notification No.RD33LGS2007. Further, the petitioners are not eligible for regularization of subject land not only for the aforesaid reasons, but also for the reason that they are holding totally 25 acres 37 guntas at Shettyhalli village as well as at Sominakoppa village. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioners against the government for adverse possession was dismissed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.862/2012 by granting the relief of injunction. However, the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.49/2024 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by a detailed order. Though it is contended that the Regular Second Appeal is pending before this Court against the said order, that itself is not a ground to consider the prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition. 13. As rightly contended by learned counsel for respondent No.5, respondent Nos.1 to 4 after obtaining the report in connection with the subject land, passed the impugned order granting the subject land in favour of respondent No.5 for a period of 30 years on lease that too for construction of building for educational purpose for backward class students. 14. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No.1-the Government has no authority to grant the land, and that in view of Rule 19(1) and (3) of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner alone is empowered to pass such an order, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that the subject land is classified as "Kere" which falls under the category of 'B' Kharab land. As such, the government is empowered to notify regarding extinguishment of classification of the land and empowered to grant the same to respondent No.5. 15. Further, it is contended by the petitioners that respondent Nos.1 to 4 granted the land in favour of respondent No.5 with a vested interest and with an ulterior motive and as such, the said grant requires to be quashed. The said contention of the petitioners cannot be entertained since the petitioners have not filed this writ petition in a public interest or that they have not filed this writ petition by challenging the rejection of their grant. Hence, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case. In that view of the matter, the challenge raised by the petitioners in the impugned order does not hold good and accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is therefore dismissed.