P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.

The above appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.6.2008 made in Writ Petition No.3031/2008, confirming order of the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner dated 16.1.2008, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner directed the revenue officials to enter the name of the 4th respondent – Trust, over the land to an extent of 13 acres in S y. No.10 of Varadanayakanahalii village, Kasaba flobli, ShidlaghattaTaiuk, which was granted to the 4th respondent by proceedings of the Government dated 24.1993 for running an educational institution, superseding the earlier order of the Tahsildar granting 25 acres of land in favour of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent-Trust, by virtue of the order of the Government dated 24.1993, was in effective possession and enjoyment of the property to an extent of 13 acres in Sy. No.10 referred to above.

1. The appellant -- petitioner alleging that the 13 acres of land granted by the Government to 4th respondent-Trust is classified as a Gomal land and the petitioner and other villagers are in unauthorised occupation and are cultivating the same, seeks to quash the order dated 16.1 2008 of the Deputy Commissioner.

2. It was also brought to our notice that when the Tahsildar originally granted 25 acres by proceedings dated 30th July 1986 and ordered to hand over the possession of the property in favour of the 4th respondent, the villagers raised objection on an earlier occasion and also challenged the same before this court, which ultimately culminated in order dated 29.1988 in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.9623-25 of 1988 of the Apex Court. The Apex court after hearing both sides held as follows: -

" Heard learned counsel for parties. We find from the impugned judgment that there was a report from the Tahsildar to the following effect:

"Out of the total extent of 325 acres of land in Survey No.10, 125 acres remained un-alienated and since the cattle head of the village is 323, 90 acres of land is reserved for grazing of the above-said cattle and out of the remaining land, an extent of 25 acres may be granted in favour of the Trust.......................... "

Mr. Sorabjee, counsel appearing for the petitioners states that if 90 acres are really available and are reserved for as grazing land for the cattle of the village, he would not press this application. Learned Advocate-General as also counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 agree that the question of allotting 25 acres of land which is impugned in the proceedings would arise only after the reservation of 90 acres is done for grazing purposes. We accordingly dispose of the special leave petitions with a direction that the State shall ensure availability of 90 acres of reserved land for pasturage out of the Survey No.10 and steps may be taken thereafter to allot 25 acres to respondent No.4."

3. It is only pursuant to the said order, the Government has now allotted 13 acres of land to the 4" respondent-Trust by proceedings dated 24.1993, after ensuring the availability of 90 acres of land for pasturage in Sy.No.10 referred to above and possession has also been taken over by the 4t respondent.

4. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition holding that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.1.2008. However, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the petitioner to workout his rights with regard to the land which is claimed to be under unauthorised occupation as hereunder: -

"4. As could be seen from the memorandum of writ petition, petitioner submits that he is in unauthorised possession of land and that therefore, his prayer for grant of land should have been considered by respondents 1 to 3. If the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land, he will have to file an application in the prescribed form before the appropriate authority within the prescribed period. If such application is already filed within the prescribed period, the