The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's application for regularisation was not maintainable due to the lack of available land for grant and the Supreme Court's confirmation of the land grant to the third respondent.

( 1 ) THIS matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsels appearing on both sides.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the second respondent. He has sought for writ of certiorari quashing the grant certificate granted vide order dated 3-7-1978 in case No. LND. SR. 1439/66-67 granted by the second respondent. He has also sought for quashing the endorsement dated 12-7-2001 in case No. LND:ruc:14:2001-02 issued by the second respondent- tahsildar. Further the petitioner has sought for a direction directing the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of land bearing Survey No. 24 of Dasagondanahalli, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas along with the case of the legal representatives of respondent 3, and to dispose of the same afresh after due enquiry.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an application for grant of lands measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of land situated at Dasagondanahalli, Doddaballapur taluk, which was granted in favour of third respondent on the ground that he has got adjacent land measuring 4 acres and he is in enjoyment of the same. The validity of this grant was questioned by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the grant stating that the report of the Revenue Inspector and the spot mahazar establish that the petitioner has been in possession and cultivation of the land in question. The Assistant Commissioner directed the second respondent to consider the application of both the parties and to pass orders afresh. Against the order of the assistant Commissioner, the third respondent filed an appeal before the deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 23-1-1987, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that there was no possibility of regularisation of the unauthorised cultivation.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition No. 32 of 1987 before the Karnataka appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 21-1-1991 dismissed the said revision and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy commissioner.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 5580 of 1991 before this Court. This writ petition came to be dismissed by the order of this Court dated 7-11-1997. Against the order of this Court, the petitioner preferred W. A. No. 6427 of 1997. This court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single judge as also the revenue authorities and directed the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order of this Court in W. A. No. 6427 of 15)97, the third respondent preferred Special Leave Petition No. 5215 of 2000 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its order dated 20-9-2000 allowed the civil appeal and set aside the order passed by this court.

( 7 ) WHEN things stood thus, by virtue of the amendment of Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964 (amended as Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1997), the petitioner filed an application before the second respondent for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the land in question. In pursuance of the said application filed by the petitioner, the second respondent issued Annexure-H endorsement stating that the Regularisation Committee has rejected the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the above petition.

( 8 ) THE principal contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was amended by virtue of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1997, subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal by this Court, providing for filing of applications by the persons who were in unauthorised occupation for regularisation, he filed an application for regularisation of his unauthorised c