Shri Shantaling S/O. Sharanappa Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.110980/2014 (KLR-RES) AND ACCORDINGLY TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12824-DB WA No. 100402 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

¶32

The present appeal has been filed seeking to set-aside the order passed in W.P No.110980/2018, whereby learned Single Judge has rejected the challenge made by the petitioner to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 30.10.2014, whereby, the grant made in favour of the petitioner in Block No.29 to an extent of 10 acres for non-agricultural purpose came to be set aside, exercising the power under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) with the consequential order of forfeiture of land to the Government.

¶33

The case made out by the petitioner is that the order at Annexure-L was purported to be passed in exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Act, which power is limited to revision of orders passed under Sections 127 and 129 of the Act and such quasi judicial power could not be exercised to cancel a grant.

¶34

3. It was also contended that grant being made in the year 1982, notice was issued only in 2012 after unreasonable period of time and such exercise of power is impermissible in

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12824-DB WA No. 100402 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another V/s D. Narsing Rao and Others¹ .

¶38

It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of such submissions raised including the order of the Division Bench in the case of Umesh V/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others² , which stipulates that power under Section 136(3) cannot be used to cancel a grant when there is a specific provision under law for cancellation. It is further submitted that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no sufficient time was granted.

¶39

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference, as the power when exercised could be traced to the proper legal provision and mere description of wrong provision would not vitiate the order.

¶40

1 AIR (2015) 3 SCC 695

¶41

2 2009(3) KCCR 2035

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12824-DB WA No. 100402 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Perused the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has observed that show-cause notice was given and opportunity having been given pursuant to the Assistant Commissioner having made a spot inspection noticing violation of terms of grant having been made out, no case for interference in the order of the Deputy Commissioner was made out.

¶45

It must be noticed that the material on record would indicate that a complaint at the first instance was made on 15.11.2011 referred to in the communication at Annexure-G to the Assistant Commissioner by the Deputy Commissioner. The complaint referred to appears to indicate that a request was made that the land measuring 6 acres 3 guntas in Survey No.29 was suitable for formation of sites and accordingly necessary steps were to be taken. In fact, it is in the context of such complaint that communication came to be addressed by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner. The subject matter of such communication refers to Survey No.29 relates to grant made to the petitioner.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12824-DB WA No. 100402 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

It appears that the complainant wanted land to carve out sites as regards the same land was granted to the petitioner and this appears to have weighed the mind of the Deputy Commissioner, who in their order at Annexure-L has referred to

¶49

the communication to the Deputy Commissioner by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.01.2012. However, it must be noticed that keeping aside the original complaint, another complaint came to be made out on the basis of which, a showcause notice came to be issued at Annexure-J, in which, a fresh ground for cancellation was made out as regards non use of land for the purpose for which it was granted. Finally though reply was made out requesting for time, order came to be passed at Annexure-L. The order at Annexure-L could not have placed reliance on the communication of the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner dated 28.01.2012, when such complaint was not a subject matter of the showcause notice issued to the petitioner on second time i.e., on 16.09.2014. When the order passed has referred to certain other correspondences, which were not put-forth to the petitioner in the last show-cause notice on the basis of which impugned order was passed. Accordingly, the impugned order

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12824-DB WA No. 100402 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

passed on the basis of a incomplete show-cause notice, can be stated to be an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶53

Even otherwise, we notice that the petitioner submits that he had sought for time to clarify regarding allegation of non use and has referred to documents placed before the learned Single Judge at Annexures-M, N and P.

¶54

We find that the learned Single Judge not having noticed all such contentions raised as observed above, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. In light of the discussion made above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-L dated 30.10.2014 is set aside.

¶55

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed .

¶56

Sd/(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

¶59

RKM /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Shri Shantaling S/O. Sharanappa Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shantaling S/O. Sharanappa Patil v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivanand S/O Prahlad Anavekar Vs K S Hanchinal

Jayashree W/O Ramesh Keralli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Harijan Yerriswamy S/O Smt Basamma

Shri Anand S/O Siddappa Yaligar Vs Shri Rajshekar Hallur

Savita Hegde W/O Deceased Dr. Vishwanath Vs Gajanan S/O Shivaram Naik

Shri Devappa Shankar Chougula Vs Mr Hidayatullah S/O Gulab Momin