Partly allowed

K C Udaya v. the Prl. Secretary

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2021WP/9183/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes multiple orders of the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner regarding the cancellation of land grants. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction as the correct remedy lay with the Appellate Tribunal, and the Assistant Commissioner failed to record essential findings required under Rule 108-K before cancelling the grants.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner quashed; proceedings restored to Assistant Commissioner for re-consideration.

K C Udaya Vs the Prl. Secretary — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9187/2021 (KLR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.9183/2021 (KLR)

¶6

IN W.P.NO.9187/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K C ROHITH S/O LATE CHANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HAISODLURU VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571249

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY. H, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE PRL.SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI-571249.

¶14

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB DIVISION MADIKERI

¶16

KODAGU DISTRICT-571249.

¶17

TAHSILDAR VIRAJPET TALUK VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571249

¶18

AKRAMA-SAKRAMA SAMITHI TALUK OFFICE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571249 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO.RA/39/2017-18 PASSED BY THE R-2, DTD 22.01.2020 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD 28.02.2017 BY CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R-5 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DTD 29.07.2011, MEASURING 4 ACRES 95 CENTS AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.181/1K OF HAISODLURU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A AND B.

¶22

IN W.P.NO.9183/2021

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

K C UDAYA S/O LATE CHANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT HAISODLURU VILLAGE

¶25

¶26

VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571249

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

THE PRL.SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI-571249.

¶32

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB DIVISION MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT-571249.

¶33

TAHSILDAR VIRAJPET TALUK VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571249

¶34

AKRAMA-SAKRAMA SAMITHI TALUK OFFICE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571249 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 02.01.2020 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶37

¶38

MADIKERI SUB DIVISION, MADIKERI DATED 28.02.2017, BY CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R5 INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 29.07.2011, MEASURING 4 ACRES 95 CENTS AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.181/1B OF HAISODLURU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.

¶39

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.

¶42

The petitioners, who have the advantage of grant of 4 acres 95 cents of lands each in Sy.No.181/1K and Sy.No.181/1B of Haisodluru Village, Hudikeri Hobli, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District respectively, have preferred these petitions impugning the respective orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Madikere Sub Division [the Third Respondent] under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (' KLR Rules' for brevity) and the Deputy Commissioner,

¶43

¶44

Kodagu District, Madikeri [the Second Respondent] under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [‘ the KLR Act’ for brevity ]. The details of the impugned Orders are as follows:

¶45

[a] In WP No. 9187/2021 - The Assistant Commissioner’s Order dated 28.02.2017 in No.NCR(V)320/14-15) and the Deputy Commissioner’s Order dated 22.01.2020 in No.RA/39/2017-18 [ Annexure – B and A in WP No. 9187/2021 ];

¶46

[b] In WP No. 9183/2021 - The Assistant Commissioner’s Order dated 28.02.2017 in No.NCR(V)318/14-15) and the Deputy Commissioner’s Order dated 22.01.2020 in No.RA/36/2017-18 [ Annexure – B and A in WP No. 9183/2021 ];

¶47

The petitioners being aggrieved by the Assistant

¶48

Commissioner's impugned orders dated 28.02.2017 in the aforesaid proceedings under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules

¶49

¶50

have preferred the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act . But indubitably the petitioners should have filed their appeals under Section 49 of the KLR Act with further remedy under Section 56 of the KLR Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. It would suffice to observe that the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act and under Section 49 of the KLR Act are distinct, and the petitioner’s proceedings under 136(3) impugning the order under Section 108-K of the KLR Act could not have been maintained. The Deputy Commissioner’s Orders cannot be sustained on this short ground.

¶51

The merits of the Assistant Commissioner’s impugned orders are examined in the present proceedings at the instance of the petitioners in the light of their case that the Assistant Commissioner has exercised jurisdiction under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules without application of mind and without rendering a finding that the respective grants in their

¶52

¶53

favour by way of regularization of unauthorized occupation are liable to be cancelled under any one of the circumstances contemplated therein. The Assistant Commissioner has cancelled the grant in favour of each of the petitioners on the ground that their mother - Smt. Kaveramma - owns 5.05 acres of coffee land and the petitioners together own 0.50 acres of the land and the revenue entries for these properties have been mutated in their mother's name despite the same being ancestral properties.

¶54

The Assistant Commissioner could not have

¶55

cancelled the order under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules, unless he arrived at a definite conclusion that the petitioners had furnished false information when they submitted their applications in the prescribed Forms for grant and that the lands held by their family members could be considered as the lands personally held by them. Further, the Assistant Commissioner should have discussed the details of the members in the petitioners’ family and whether the extent of

¶56

¶57

land owned by the family members would be beyond the permissible limit. But, there is no finding in this regard. Further, if the Assistant Commissioner has not arrived at the conclusion that the grant in favour of the petitioners are liable to be cancelled either because they have furnished false information or have played fraud – the two circumstances mentioned under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules - the impugned orders would be without jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and the aforesaid questions must be examined with adequate opportunities to the petitioners.

¶58

For the foregoing, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

a) The petitions are allowed in part, and the Deputy

¶61

Commissioner’s impugned orders dated 22.01.2020 in No.RA/39/2017-18 and No.RA/36/2017-18 as

¶62

also the Assistant Commissioner’s impugned orders

¶63

¶64

dated 28.02.2017 in No.NCR(V)320/14-15 and No.NCR(V)318/14-15 are quashed.

¶65

b) The proceedings in No.NCR(V)320/14-15 and No.NCR(V)318/14-15 are restored for

¶66

re-consideration by the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri Sub Division, Madikeri, Kodagu District/third respondent in the light of the observations made herein.

¶67

c) The petitioners shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri Sub Division, Madikeri, Kodagu District/third respondent in the respective proceedings in No.NCR(V)320/14-15 and No.NCR(V)318/14-15 without further notice of first hearing on 02.08.2021.

¶68

SD/JUDGE

¶69

K C Udaya v. the Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K C Udaya v. the Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ranganath K R Vs the State of Karnataka

Shantha Jogi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Narasimharaju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rajamma Vs Divisional Forest Officer

K C Rohith Vs the Prl. Secretary

Smt. P. Bramaramba Vs Dr. Tulip Chamany