The Tahsildar Vs Sri K B Shashidhara

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN THE WP No.14500/2016 (KLR-LG).

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

( PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL )

¶24

This appeal is filed by the State challenging the order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.14500/2016 (KLR-LG).

¶25

Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the respondent herein filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by appellant No.4 dated 16.07.1981 wherein the grant made in favour of Sri.H.V.Ramaswamy was cancelled and which was affirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.234/2015. It is the case of the respondent that the Special Assistant Commissioner, Chikmagalur granted land

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶27

measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.142 of Kamanekere Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagluru District in favour

¶28

Sri.H.V.Ramaswamy. The appellant No.4 without following any procedure, cancelled the grant on the ground that the grantee has not put the land for cultivation. The order of cancellation was assailed by the purchaser before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the initiation of proceedings by the authority is beyond reasonable time. Being aggrieved, the officials of the State are in appeal.

¶29

Learned AGA appearing for the appellants submits that, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition only on the ground that there is delay in initiation of the proceedings. It is submitted that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that, the grantee has failed to adhere to the terms of grant order. The grantee is admittedly a resident of Bengaluru and the

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶31

granted land was kept vacant and not put for cultivation as is evident from the cancellation order. It is submitted that before cancellation of the grant, the appellant No.4 has secured the report and on being satisfied that the grantee has kept the land vacant, cancelled the grant. It is submitted that the representative of the grantee has appeared before respondent No.4 and after hearing him, the impugned order of grant was passed. It is further submitted that, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated these aspects. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶32

Per contra , Sri.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the grant is made on 22.12.1962 and the cancellation by appellant No.4 is on 16.07.1981, which is nearly 20 years after the grant. The learned Single Judge considered the delay and came to the conclusion that the authority is required to initiate the proceeding of cancellation grant within reasonable period.

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶34

The said finding of the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the settled proposition of law. In support

¶35

of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶36

i. Smt.Susheelamma Vs State Of Karnataka &

¶37

Others reported in 2020 SCC Online KAR 5193. ii. Venkatagiryappa Vs State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1998 KAR 4000.

¶38

iii. Gavisiddegowda Vs State of Karnataka reported in 1994 SCC Online KAR 307.

¶39

iv. Thammaiah Vs Late Puttaiah since dead by

¶40

his LR's reported in ILR 2023 KAR 2556.

¶41

It is submitted that admittedly the grant is made

¶42

by the Special Assistant Commissioner, Chikmagalur and the cancellation is by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore,

¶43

which is impermissible under the law. If, there is any violation of the grant conditions, the very authority which granted the land is required to cancel the grant. It is further submitted that, the cancellation of the grant was not acted upon by the authority by dispossessing the grantee or respondent, nor the revenue records were

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶45

changed. Hence, on this ground also he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

¶46

We have heard the arguments of the learned AGA appearing for the appellants-State and learned counsel for the respondent, meticulously perused the material available on record and we have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record.

¶47

The material on record indicate that, land measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.142 of Kamanekere Village, Kadur Taluk, Chikmagalur District was granted in favour of Sri.H.V.Ramaswamy vide order dated 22.12.1962 by the Special Assistant Commissioner, Chikmagalur as is evident from Annexure-C. Pursuant to the grant, the revenue records of the land in question were mutated in the name of grantee. It appears that, one Sri.Kashappa S/o Chikkegowda was in possession of the land in question claiming to have perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The said Kashappa filed O.S.No.37/1988

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶49

against the grantee which came to be compromised and by virtue of the said compromise Sri. Kashappa was declared to be an absolute owner of the property in question. The revenue records came to be mutated in the name of Sri. Kashappa based on the decree of the Civil Court. After the death of Kashappa, his son alienated the property by way of registered Sale Deed dated 12.11.1992 in favour of the respondent as is evident from Annexure-H. The respondent initiated the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner to enter his name in the revenue records, the Assistant Commissioner directed the Tahasildar, Kadur to verify the revenue records, conduct spot inspection and take appropriate decision.

¶50

Records further indicate that the appellant No.4 initiated proceedings against the original grantee Sri.H.V.Ramaswamy for cancellation of grant on the ground that the grantee did not cultivate the land and the same was vacant. The contention of the learned AGA is that, the GPA holder of the grantee has participated in the enquiry

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶52

proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner. Hence, the respondent cannot contend that the cancellation is contrary to the provision of the law. The said submission is taken for the purpose of rejection only. Admittedly, the grant was made in favour of the H.V.Ramaswamy on 22.12.1962 and Saguvali chit was issued on 31.01.1963. The alleged show cause notice was issued to the original grantee on 29.01.1981 and ultimately on 16.07.1981, the grant came to be cancelled. The learned Single Judge has taken note of these facts and came to the conclusion that the initiation of proceedings for cancellation of grant is beyond the reasonable period. The said finding of the learned Single Judge is based on the material available on record and as per the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not find any error or any perversity in such finding calling for interference in this appeal.

¶53

The learned counsel for the respondent has

¶54

produced record of rights from 1977 to this day along with a memo dated 18.02.2025 pertaining to the land in

¶55

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶56

question, nowhere in the revenue records the entry with regard to cancellation of grant was found nor have the revenue authorities taken any steps to enter the name of the Government after the original grant was cancelled. The impugned order dated 16.07.1981 passed by the appellant No.4 canceling the grant indicate that the appellant No.4 has directed the appellant No.1 Tahsildar, Kadur to take possession of the land. Admittedly, the possession of the land is with the respondent and no steps have been taken pursuant to the order dated 16.07.1981. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly come to conclusion that, the initiation of proceedings by the appellants was beyond reasonable time and quashed the order dated 16.07.1981.

¶57

Another aspect of the matter is that, the appellant No.2 i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, has granted the land on 22.12.1962 in favour of Sri.H.V.Ramaswamy and the Order of cancellation was made by appellant No.4 which is in violation of Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The said Rule

¶58

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶59

mandates that, any grant of land made under these Rules shall be liable to be cancelled by the authority which has granted it. In the instant case, the land is admittedly granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere and cancellation of grant is by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore. Hence, on this ground also the order of cancellation is bad in law. We have also noticed from the grant order dated 22.12.1962 that there is no clear mandate that if the grantee does not cultivate the land, authority could cancel the grant. In the absence of any such condition, the very initiation of proceedings by appellant No.4 is contrary to the grant conditions and is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments referred supra to contend that, the authorities are required to take action within reasonable time. This is a settled proposition of law and we need not advert to the judgment relied.

¶60

I.A.No.1/2023 is filed seeking for impleadment

¶61

on the of the applicants in the said application claiming that

¶62

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7706-DB W.A. No.1136/2022

¶63

they are the residents of the village, where the land is situated, and using the land in question for public purpose and claims that they are necessary parties in the above proceedings. Admittedly, no land is granted in their favour, hence they are neither necessary nor proper parties to decide the lis in question. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is rejected.

¶64

For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

¶65

any error or perversity in the order of learned Single Judge calling for the interference in the present appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

Appeal is dismissed .

¶68

No orders to costs.

¶69

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶70

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶71

ABK/DHA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

The Tahsildar v. Sri K B Shashidhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar v. Sri K B Shashidhara

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

Ms Rajavardhan Sanchi Vasant Vs the State of Karnataka

M P Birla Institute of Management Vs State of Karnataka

M P Birla Institute of Management Vs State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer Vs S R Prahlad Rao Dead by L R.S

Lolamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Bombay Rayon Fashions Ltd. Vs the Director