The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorised occupants on Gomal Land have no statutory right for regularisation of their occupation under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

V. Gopala Gowda, J.—The Petitioners who are claiming to be the unauthorised occupants of the land bearing Sy. No. 17 of Kodipalya Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, which is a Gomal Land have preferred these Writ Petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to abstain from dispossessing the Petitioners from their respective properties as mentioned at paragraphs 4 to 7 vide Annexures-B and E to K which measures 27 acres 35 guntas and to direct Respondents not to evict them without due process of law as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the relevant rules thereof. Further they have sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to dispose of the applications filed by them for regularisation of their unauthorised cultivation in the said land as provided under the provisions of Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the relevant rules thereof urging various grounds.

2. The various facts and legal contentions need not be adverted to in this order in view of the admitted fact stated in the Writ Petitions that the land in question is a Gomal Land. Section 94(A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 confers right upon the unauthorised occupants in respect of the Government Land other than the lands which are reserved by the Government as provided under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'Act, 1964') read with Rule 108(I) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short "Rules, 1966"). Rules 108(I) of the Rules, 1966 clearly contemplates that notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, lands assigned for special purposes under Section 71 of the Act, 1964 and lands described in revenue records as mentioned in the said section which in the opinion of the Government is required for public purpose, shall not be granted. The provisions of the said Rule clearly provides that the provisions of this rule shall not apply to lands set-apart for free pasturage under Section 71 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act which will be governed by Rule 97. Rule 97 of the rules clearly provides that the Government Land shall be set apart for free pasturage for the cattle of each village at the rate of twelve hectares for every hundred heads of cattle. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 confers statutory duty upon the Deputy Commissioner to determine the extent of the land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village. Proviso (i) of Rule 97(4) of the Rules provides that no such permission shall be necessary where the reduction below the prescribed limit is for the purpose of distribution of house sites to the siteless person and for grant of land to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for agricultural purposes who are ordinarily residents of such village. Further, in view of the said Rules, in respect of the land which is reserved for pasturage of the cattle under Section 71 of the Act read with Sub-rule (4) of Rule 97 of the Rules Petitioners have no vested statutory right under Section 94(A) of the Act and the said right is subject to the conditions enumerated under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act read with Rule 97 of the Rules. The contentions urged by the Petitioners are that their applications in Form No. 50 are pending before the Committee for Regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of the land and as such the Petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in question until their applications are disposed of following the procedure contemplated under Section 94(A) read with the Rules thereof and that eviction of the Petitioners from the Lands in question will entail serious civil consequences upon their rights. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1975 (1) SN. 231 & 1974 (1) KLJ 130. Further, he has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in a public interest litigation in Writ Petition No