The central legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a grant must be based on a correct interpretation of the relevant rules and acts, and the authority responsible must exercise independent judgment.

( 1 ) THE petitioner sought and obtained grant of a building site which is said to be next to his own. The grant made by the assistant commissioner presumably under Section 18 (2) of the land grant rules which enjoined granting a site to the adjacent owner if the site itself cannot be disposed off independently, if he so desired and at such value as the deputy commissioner may determine. Admittedly, the said site was granted to the petitioner on the foregoing ground.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the deputy commissioner, it appears moved by somebody else, passed an order of stay of the grant and clamped it despite an application made by the petitioner to vacate the same. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the divisional commissioner without any success and thereafter the assistant commissioner who had granted the site to the petitioner went on to cancel the grant under Annexure-F. In the preamble to Annexure-F , a reference to the circumstances under which the assistant commissioner cancelled the grant made earlier in favour of the petitioner is made. The relevant portion of the preamble and the order reads thus:. . . . . . . . . . further the divisional commissioner, belgaum endorsing copy of the same has directed the assistant commissioner, indi to cancel the order under Section 25 of K. L. R. Act, 1964. Accordingly, the show cause notice was given to grantee. Meanwhile the grantee has approached the Hon'ble revenue minister of Karnataka and presented petition. The same was accepted by the Hon'ble revenue minister and forwarded in the deputy commissioner, bijapur with direction to vacate the stay and close the matter. Now the revenue secretary, government of Karnataka directed under their No. Rd 21 loj 81 of 1-2-1982 that the directions/orders passed by the previous Hon'ble minister on 5-9-1980 are revoked and directed to take further action in this case as per rules. The deputy commissioner bijapur has directed under his endt. No. Rb. Lbp. Sr. 15/77 dated 30-4-1982 to cancel the order passed under this office No. Lbp. Sr. 65/77 dated 31-5-1978.

( 3 ) UNDER the circumstances narrated in preamble i the assistant commissioner, indi sub-division, indi hereby order under the powers vested in me under Section 25 of the K. L. R. Act, 1964 and revoke the order passed under this office No. Lbp. Sr. 65/77 of 31-5-1978 and to take further action to cancel the devestment notice.

( 4 ) EARLIER the petitioner had been notified of the assistant commissioner's intendment to cancel the grant and thereupon the petitioner had joined fray by making a representation as per Annexure-E. It is common ground that, as averred by the petitioner, the assistant commissioner without considering the objections filed by him, had proceeded to cancel the grant by passing the cryptic order excerpted above read with the preamble citing directions of the deputy commissioner makes it clear that the assistant commissioner had been acting as an automaton without exercising his own mind independent of the administrative directions of the third respondent.

( 5 ) THE learned government pleader appearing for the assistant commissioner urges that the grant had been cancelled because the petitioner was found to possess two houses in the village and consequently, under the scheme of Rule 18 of the land grant rules, he became ineligible for grant of a house site. The petitioner thus being the recipient of an illegal benefit i should therefore desist from interfering with the impugned order which merely took away a new benefit legally. But what the argument overlooks is the circumstance that in the particular case the petitioner owning other properties viz. , owning of a house was not clearly relevant as this was a case where the petitioner wanted to annex an adjacent holding. Rule 18 (2) which permits such annexation reads: 18 (2) where a building site cannot with advantage be granted as an independent site, the adjoining holder if he so desires, may be gran