By way of this writ petition, framed and styled as a public interest litigation, the petitioners, said to be the residents of R. Thimmasandra Village, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District, seek to question the orders dated 26.08.2017 (Annexure-C) and dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure-D) issued respectively by the Government, in its Revenue Department (Land Grant-1) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, Kolar, whereby 25 acres of land in Sy.No.131 at R. Thimmasandra Village, Ronuru Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, has been taken out of the land reserved for gomal (cattle grazing); and has been allotted to the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Karnataka for the purpose of construction of a Super Speciality Hospital.

2. The petitioners submit that 134.17 acres of land in Sy.No.131 of R. Thimmasandra Village was reserved and retained as gomal for grazing of cattle, but the Government, in its Revenue Department, by its order dated 26.08.2017, reduced the area of the said cattle grazing land by 25 acres and allotted this 25 acres for construction of Super Speciality Hospital. It is pointed out that pursuant to the orders made by the Government, the respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, issued the order on 24.10.2017 reserving the said 25 acres of land for Super Speciality Hospital and transferring the same to the Health and Family Welfare Department. It is further pointed out that consequential mutation entries are made in the revenue records; Health and Family Welfare Department has laid the foundation stone for construction of the Super Speciality Hospital; and now, the construction of the hospital has started on 05.03.2018 and the same is in progress in full swing.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned orders issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 in exercise of the powers under Section 71 of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [‘the Act of 1964’] and Rule 97(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 [‘the Rules of 1966’], are illegal and contrary to the provisions of law because the respondents have no authority to reduce the extent of the land reserved for grazing of cattle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has particularly referred to and relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of C. Kenchappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., ILR 2000 Kar 1072. Learned counsel would submit that the revenue authorities have failed to consider the requirements of the villagers for cattle grazing and have not followed the requisite procedure; and hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the respondents deserve to be restrained from carrying out the construction of the Super Speciality Hospital.

5. Having given anxious consideration to the submissions made and having examined the records, we are clearly of the view that this petition cannot be considered as the one espousing a genuine public cause and does not merit admission.

6. True it is that the Act of 1964 and the Rules of 1966 ensure providing of the land for special purposes and it is, inter alia, enjoined upon the revenue authorities to set apart the land for free pasturage but then, the Deputy Commissioner of the area is especially empowered to determine the extent of land necessary to be set apart for free pasturage in any village and he could also reduce the extent thereof. Section 71 of the Act of 1964 and Rule 97 of the Rules of 1966 respectively, read as under:-

“Section 71. Lands may be assigned for special purposes and when assigned, shall not be otherwise used without sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.-Subject to the general orders of the State Government, Survey Officers, whilst survey operations are proceeding under this Act, and at any other time, the Deputy Commissioner, may set apart lands, which are the property of the State Government and not in the lawful occupation of any person or aggregate of persons in any village or portions of a village, for free pa