State of Karnataka Vs Mr E Fidelis Prabhu

MR E. FIDELIS PRABHU S/O EMELE RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDENT OF BELLAME MARIYANAGARA VILLAGE KONANOORU HOBLI ARAKALGUD TLAUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 130

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SRI GIRISHA H.M., ADVOCATE)

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51148-DB WA No. 1396 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL & SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.2161 OF 2024 (KLR-LG) DATED 01.04.2024 & ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶35

For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application―I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 454 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶36

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2161/2024 (KLR-LG).

¶37

The respondent had filed the said petition, inter alia , impugning an order dated 08.06.2023 cancelling the grant of lands granted in his favour. The said petition was allowed and the matter

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51148-DB WA No. 1396 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

was remanded back to the Special Land Acquisition Officer [SLAO] to have the value of the standing trees in the granted land assessed at the hands of the competent authority.

¶41

It appears that the order proceeded on the basis that the cancellation order, which was impugned in the said petition had been passed on account of failure on the part of the writ petitioner to pay the value of the trees.

¶42

It also appears from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge had set aside all observations made in the order dated 08.06.2023, to the effect that the writ petitioner had not established the extent of lands submerged or that he was the owner of those lands. The learned Single Judge had held that the observations were general observations. The order dated 08.06.2023 cancelling the grant was required to be set aside on the ground that the principles of natural justice had not been followed. The appellant now seeks to advance submission to sustain the observations to the effect that the respondent had not established

¶43

that he was the owner of any part of the lands which were submerged and thus had not established that he was eligible for

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51148-DB WA No. 1396 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

grant of alternate land. It does not appear that the aforesaid contentions were advanced before the learned Single Judge.

¶47

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the grant in favour of the respondent has been cancelled as it was one of the grants that was considered as illegal. He contended that on inquiry, it was found that out of 979 instances of grant of lands to landless people who had lost their lands because of submergence on account of construction of the Hemavathi/Yagachi/Vatehole Reservoirs, 414 grants were found to be obtained by forged signatures. He further submits that the grant in the case of the respondent is also called into question as she could not establish the genuineness of the grant and the same was cancelled.

¶48

The learned Single Judge had not accepted the above contention and held that the observations in the order dated 08.06.2023 to the aforesaid effect are general observations.

¶49

After some arguments, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants seeks liberty to file a review petition.

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:51148-DB WA No. 1396 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The present appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file a review petition. Liberty is also reserved to the appellants to file afresh. We clarify that all contentions of the

¶54

parties are reserved.

¶55

Pending application stands disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶58

SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

State of Karnataka v. Mr E Fidelis Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. Mr E Fidelis Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr. H D Kumaraswamy

M/S T K Jana Gold Jewellery Works Vs the Chairman

Sri. Krishnappa by His Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Govindaraju Vs the Principal Secretary

Earafan Vs National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Ncism)

Sri. Sanjeev Murthy Vs Dr. Shalini Rajneesh