The impugned notification was not sustainable as it did not follow the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, and disregarded the guidelines issued by the Government and recommendations sent by the deputy Commissioner for constituting the Committee.

( 1 ) WITH the consent of learned Counsels for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the notification dated 6-12-2000 in No. RD 10 LBJ 2000 issued by 1st respondent (Annexure-A ). Further he sought for a direction to respondent 1 to reconstitute the Committee strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules by issuing a mandamus.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly representing Thikota Constituency in Bijapur District. Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') which has been inserted to the Act No. 2 of 1991 provides for regularisation of unauthorised occupation through the Committee. The Committee constituted under the said section has power to grant the land to the persons who are found to be eligible. Further it is stated, Chapter 13-A of the Rules has also been inserted subsequently, under which the rules have been framed for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of land.

( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the Committee which has been constituted as per the impugned notification has not been constituted in accordance with Act and Rules made therein. The petitioner is a member representing Thikota Constituency which has major part of bijapur Taluk. Therefore, under Rule 108-E of the Land Revenue Rules, the petitioner as a matter of right is entitled to be a member of the committee. But however, respondent 1 while constituting the Committee has nominated respondent 2 as the Chairman of the Committee though he represents the Bijapur Constituency which is a minor portion in Bijapur Taluk. Hence, the said nomination as member of the Committee is illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the rules of the karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

( 5 ) IN view of this, the petitioner has made detailed representation to the respondent 1 herein bringing out the irregularities noticed in the constitution of the Committee and requested for reconstitution of the same in accordance with the rules. It is also brought to the notice of the deputy Commissioner through representation. . The Deputy Commissioner after considering the representation has sent a letter dated 19-1-2001 to respondent 1 intimating the grievance of the petitioner.

( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent 1 while constituting the Committee has totally ignored the provisions of the Act and Rules made therein. Further he contended that the Government has issued certain guidelines in the matter of constituting the committee wherein the recommendation made by the local Tahsildars and the MLAs ought to have been considered but in the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is an MLA representing the major portion of bijapur Taluk but the said guidelines issued by the Government has been ignored. Therefore, the respondents have disregarded the relevant provisions of the Act and arbitrarily taken the decision. The said decision taken by the respondents is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Even the petitioner's Counsel has pointed out that the Revenue Minister has given assurance on the floor of the House that the Government will not discriminate and take arbitrary action in the matter of constituting the Committee and that he has assured that committee will be constituted in accordance with the guidelines, and the recommendations of the local MLAs will also be considered. But however the 1st respondent having arbitrarily constituted the Committee appointed 2nd respondent as Chairman and respondents 3 to 5 as members of the Committee without considering the case of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 108-E of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 which reads thus:"108-E. Members of the Committee. The Committee shall consist of the following m