The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with legal provisions, including the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, in matters related to land grants and lease cancellations.

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. W.P. No. 13664 of 2015 is filed by Sri S. Sundaresh, who is the son of a freedom fighter, namely, late Suryanarayanarao. His case in brief is that his father was earlier allotted the land measuring 4 acres at Sy. No. 76 of Sadaramangala Village. On account of a series of litigations, the said land grant could not be confirmed in favour of Suryanarayanarao. He died in the year 1989. On his legal representative (the present petitioner) continuing the battle for the grant of land under freedom fighters' (political sufferers) quota, the Government granted 4 acres of land at Sy. No. 129 of Sreegandhadakavalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. He has filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus to effect the mutation entries in his favour in respect of the land and to hand over the possession of the land to him. Ms. Nalina Mayagowda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the possession of the 4 acres of land is taken over from the third respondent-Golden Valley Education Trust (hereinafter called as 'the said Trust'), the earlier grantee/lessee. She submits that on the expiry of the lease period, the granted land automatically re-vests with the Government. She submits that the revenue records show that the land in question is a gomal land. She submits that the petitioner has already deposited Rs.6.00 crores with the Government on 17-7-2013.

2. W.P. Nos. 2454 and 15058 of 2015 are filed by the said Trust. In W.P. No. 2454 of 2015 raising the challenge to the Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated 20-1-2010 (Annexure-S) cancelling the grant of land measuring 15 acres standing at Sy. No. 51 of Sreegandhadakavalu Village and the order dated 30-12-2014 (Annexure-A) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('K.A.T.' for short), upholding the Special Deputy Commissioner's order.

3. In W.P. No. 15058 of 2015 the challenge is raised to the Government Order dated 22-4-2013 (Annexure-A) granting 4 acres of land out of 15 acres, earlier leased to the said Trust, to Sri S. Sundaresh (respondent 5 in W.P. No. 15058 of 2015 and the petitioner in W.P. No. 13664 of 2015).

4. Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 2454 and 15058 of 2015 submits that the said Trust was not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. He submits that the relevant materials were not taken into account by the Special Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, the said Trust was put on notice, but the reply submitted by it is not even referred to, much less considered.

5. He submits that the impugned order is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He submits that the exercise of power is traced to Rule 19(4)(a)(ix) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 ('the said Rules' for short). But the provisions contained therein have no application whatsoever for the facts of the present case. He submits that when the Government grants the land, the Government alone is competent to rescind, withdraw or cancel the grant. The Special Deputy Commissioner does not have the competence to cancel the grant.

6. He submits that no summary enquiry under Section 39 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('K.L.R. Act' for short) has taken place. He submits that the authorities have not resorted to initiate the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 ('Public Premises Act' for short) into motion.

7. He submits that the said Trust has made an application for the renewal of the grant. Without passing any order on the renewal application, the land grant has come to be cancelled. As far as the grant of the land to Sundaresh is concerned, it is the contention of Sri Sampath Kumar that the land in question is a converted land; conversion fee is also paid. As it has lost its agricultural character long ago, it is not available for being granted to anybody at this juncture.

8. The learned Counsel submits that the order gr