ORDER
K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. The short question involved in this writ petition is:
Whether a person who has a privilege in a Government land known as kumkidar's privilege, has to be heard by the Tahsildar while granting permission under Section 90-A of the land Revenue Act, to lay the pipeline for the supply of water from one land to another
2. The petitioners and the respondents are the close relatives. The 5th respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar, Puttur, under Section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, seeking permission to lay a pipeline through the Government land, namely Sy. No. 57/2 of Paduvannoor Village of Puttur Taluk.
3. The said application was allowed. The respondent 5, has been permitted to lay the pipeline at a depth of 2l/a ft. from the ground level in Government land bearing Sy. No. 57/2, in order to supply the water to the land of the 5th respondent situated in Sy. No. 58/2A.
4. The order of the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioners herein by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur, in REV:SR 10/99-00, contending that they have got a kumki right in respect of Sy. No. 57/2 and that they have also filed an application for seeking regularisation of kumki rights before the Competent Authority. Therefore, they have to be treated as persons interested in the said land and that the Tahsildar has granted permission under Section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act without giving petitioners opportunity of hearing them. The appeal of the petitioners was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 10-7-2000.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore, in No. RAP 76/2000-01. The Deputy Commissioner though allowed the appeal of the petitioners, virtually has not granted any reliefs to the petitioners.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri B.M. Krishna Bhat contends, that his clients are the kumkidar's and that, without hearing them the order has been passed by the Tahsildar under Section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and that the order of the Tahsildar suffers from illegality, as no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to substantiate their rights. It is not in dispute that Sy. No. 57/2 of Paduvannoor Village is a Government land, either the petitioners or the respondent 5, have no right over the said land, except the rights claimed by the parties as kumkidars. In this background, it is better to mention the rights of kumkidar in the said land. According to me, the kumkidar has got certain privileges like collecting the leaves for green manure and to collect manure, and to cut and remove the timber for his domestic and residential requirements. Except these privileges, he has no right in the land in question. Therefore, what has to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is: Whether laying of pipes by the 5th respondent, as permitted by the Tahsildar, Puttur, will affect the rights of the petitioners to enjoy the kumki rights?
7. The learned Counsel for the 5th respondent Mr. K. Subba Rao, contends that the petitioners have no kumki privileges in the lands in question.
8. Whether the petitioners are having a kumki privilege or not, this Court cannot decide in this writ petition. Even if the contention of the petitioners is accepted that they have a kumki privilege, laying of pipes through the Government land in Sy. No. 57/2, will not affect the rights of the petitioners in enjoying the kumki rights, as the petitioners have no power to cut and remove the standing trees therein and that the 5th respondent can lay the pipes without disturbing the rights which are being enjoyed by the petitioners as kumkidars. Therefore, there was no necessity for the Tahsildar to hear the petitioners before considering the application of the 5th respondent under Section 90-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Even though the said order is passed behind the back of the petitioners, as the rights of the petitioners are infringed in no manner, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. Accordingly, there are no merits in the writ petition and the petition is therefore dismissed. It is needless to state that laying of pipes by the 5th respondent will not come in the way of petitioners enjoying the kumki privileges, if they are having any rights. Parties to bear their costs.