Shri Beeranna Nayak S/O Late Venkatramana Nayak Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102559 OF 2025 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI BEERANNA NAYAK S/O. LATE VENKATRAMANA NAYAK, EX-SERVICEMAN, AGED 74 YEARS, R/AT. NO.198, HONNARAKA COLONY, BEHIND NAYAK TRADERS (ACC), NH-17, ANKOLA, UTTARA KANANDA DISTRICT-581314.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KUMTA TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA-581343.

¶14

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,

¶16

ANKOLA TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA-581314.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶19

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶21

ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 01/12/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 22/02/2021 (ANNEXURE-C) AND GRANT 3 ACRES 39 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.1342/10/1 KA

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

AND SURVEY NO.1342/12 BA IN GOKARNA GRAM, KUMATA TALUK, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT ANY LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES, 1969 AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶31

The present petition is filed by the petitioner to set aside the endorsement dated 01.12.2023 issued by respondent No.2 and consequently for a writ of mandamus to consider his application dated 22.02.2021 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant any land in favour of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, for short).

¶32

The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman who served the Country from the year 1971 to 1986. He is now aged 74 years suffering from several age related ailments and cardiovascular problems. The petitioner hails from poor

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

agricultural family. His father was a farmer and he had also fought for independence of our Country.

¶36

The petitioner made an application in the year 1975 for grant of land under the provisions of the Rules and since he was serving in Indian Army, he did not receive any order of approval or rejection of his application. The petitioner retired in the year 1994. He once again applied for grant of agricultural land under the provisions of the Rules. Though, initially, he was granted certain land on 06.05.1999, but, however, as the land was illegally occupied by certain localities in the area and due to certain political influence and pressure, the petitioner was denied the said land. Thereafter, on 01.06.2000, the Assistant Commissioner, Kumata, based on the report of the Tahasildar stated that grant of land was not possible. The petitioner applied for grant of land by making an application on 22.02.2021. The petitioner had identified two parcels of land one at Kumata taluk and the other at Ankola taluk. The letters are not responded. However, an endorsement

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

came to be issued by respondent No.2-Tahasildar, Kumata, rejecting the application vide Annexure-A. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court questioning the rejection of the application by respondent No.2.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of the learned

¶41

counsel for the petitioner that, when an ex-serviceman applies for grant of land, the same has to be considered as per law. The respondent-authorities are duty bound to notify the available land to the general public for disposal, as per the Land Grant Rules, having not done so, it ought to have considered the application of the petitioner for grant of land in accordance to the Rules by either providing the land chosen by the petitioner or if the same is not available, for a land which is available in the same taluk or in the neighboring taluk, which is available for disposal. The same having not been done, the petitioner contends that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and without application of mind and the same requires to be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to identify

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

available land in the same taluk or in the neighboring taluk and allot the same to the petitioner.

¶45

Learned AGA representing the respondents contends that the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is in accordance with law, as the land so identified or sought for, being not available, the same cannot be granted and respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the same. He sustains the impugned order and also vehemently submits that the grievance or the request of the petitioner with regard to considering his application for grant of any other land can be considered in accordance with law if reasonable time is granted.

¶46

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶47

petitioner and the respondents and perused the provisions of law.

¶48

I am in agreement with the learned counsel for

¶49

the petitioner with regard to amended Rule 8 which has

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

come into existence on 28.10.2021 and the proviso reads as

¶54

under:

¶55

“Amendment of Rule 8.- In Rule 8 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, in sub-rule (8),-

¶56

(i) for the second proviso, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

¶57

"Provided further that, if the land is not available for grant in the native taluk as per his service register, then such applications shall be transferred to the other taluk of the concerned district".

¶58

(ii) after the second proviso, as so substituted, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

¶59

"Provided also that, where no Government land is available to be granted to soldier and ex-servicemen as per the list prepared and notified every year under Rule 3, a site measuring 2400 square feet in rural area or a site measuring 1200 square feet in urban area shall be allotted in his/her native taluk and if not available in the native taluk, then in any other taluk of the concerned district at free of cost under any existing housing scheme of the State Government or a special scheme that the State Government may form in this regard"

¶60

However, no such sites will be allotted in the areas if the native taluk falls within the Bengaluru Urban District and a 1200 square feet site or 2400 square feet site as per the above proviso will be allotted in any of the taluk of the neighbouring districts.”

¶61

8. In view of the said amended Rule 8, it becomes

¶62

the obligation and duty of respondent No.2 that, on any such

¶63

application being made by an ex-serviceman, if the land is available in the very same taluk, to be allotted in accordance

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

with law and if such land is not available in the native taluk, then such application shall be transferred to the other taluk of the concerned district for consideration and if the land is available in the neighbouring taluk of the concerned district, it can be considered and allotted in accordance with law.

¶67

This being amended Rule, the intent of the Legislature and there being no ambiguity, the same has not been considered by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order.

¶68

Under the circumstances, respondent No.2 ought to have taken note of the fact that the petitioner being an ex-serviceman and special provision is provided for such persons under the Rules, the same ought to have been dealt with carefully rather than mechanically rejecting the application without referring the matter to the Tahasildar of nearby taluk or the concerned officer for allotment of land. Hence, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is accepted. The matter requires consideration and the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7547 WP No. 102559 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶72

i. This petition is allowed.

¶73

ii. The endorsement dated 01.12.2023 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed to the extent of rejecting the prayer for grant of land.

¶74

iii. Consequently, there shall be a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application dated 22.02.2021 for grant of any land in favour of the petitioner in the same native or in the neighboring taluk of the same district as per availability of land in accordance with law.

¶75

iv. The same shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶76

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶77

kmv

¶78

CT-MCK

Shri Beeranna Nayak S/O Late Venkatramana Nayak v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Beeranna Nayak S/O Late Venkatramana Nayak 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Gururaj Kulkarni, Vs the Managing Director

Shri. Kumar Hattikal Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxmi Nilesh Pawar Vs the State of Karnataka

K Malleshappa S/O Late Sri Kurubara Doddappa Alias Doddanna Vs the Ballari City Corporation

Sri Swami Shivanand S/O Yallappa Naik Hattennavar Alias Yelival Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Ashok S/O Mallappa Nidavani Vs the Deputy Commissioner