K H Udayakumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

K H Udayakumar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ of certiorari issued; the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 quashed; respondent No.4 (Tahasildhar) directed to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners; respondents left at liberty to challenge the Tribunal order in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the villagers' appeal and cancel the grant order dated 15.10.1977 when that grant had already been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. +2 more

Court's answer

Although the Assistant Commissioner is empowered under Section 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules to cancel grants of Government lands, the impugned order of cancellation passed by him goes contrary to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal confirming the grant in favour of the petitioners, and therefore could not stand.

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the confirmations by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal, the only remedy available to the respondents-villagers to challenge the Tribunal's order was to file a writ petition before this Court; the Assistant Commissioner could not re-open the matter.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land grant – Certiorari – Sy.No.67 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, Manchaholalu village, K.R. Pet Taluk, granted to petitioners' father by the Tahsildar on 15.10.1977 under Rule 7(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 on payment of upset price of Rs.112 per acre; entries mutated (MR.No.1/78-79; RTC Sy.No.67/B). Cancellation proposal (2001) rejected by Deputy Commissioner (13.02.2002); Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.239/2002 rejected the villagers' appeal and confirmed the grant; injunction decree in O.S.No.62/2003 confirmed in R.A.No.39/2010 (18.08.2012). Thirteen years after the Tribunal's order the villagers invoked Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Assistant Commissioner, in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016, cancelled the grant, followed by Deputy Tahasildhar's notice dated 16.07.2016. Held: though the Assistant Commissioner is empowered under Section 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules to cancel Government land grants, an order of cancellation contrary to the confirmations by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal cannot stand; the villagers' sole remedy was a writ petition against the Tribunal order. Writ petition allowed; certiorari issued quashing the Assistant Commissioner's order; Tahasildhar directed to restore revenue entries; respondents at liberty to challenge the Tribunal order in accordance with law.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 43293 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

K H UDAYAKUMAR DEAD BY HIS LR'S

1(a) SMT NAGAMMA W/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

1(b) SMT VISHALAKSHI D/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

1(c) SMT. SHILPA M.U D/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1(d) SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

K H RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE HIRIANAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

THE RESPONDENT NO.1(a) TO 1(d) &

RESPONDENT NO.2 ARE R/O MACHAHOLALU VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, AND SMT. USHA LINGARAJU, ADVOCATES)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-413 304

THE TAHASILDHAR K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDHAR AKKIHEBBAL NADAKACHERI AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605

REVENUE INSPECTOR AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605

VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K.R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605

M S PRASANNA S/O SSHIVARAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

SHIVAREMEGOWDA S/O DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

M D RAMESH S/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

SHIVARAM S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

KRISHNA

S/O RAGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

GOPALA S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

PRASANNA S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

M C CHANDRASHEKAR S/O GOPALA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

M K HIRESH S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 17 ARE RESIDENT OF MACHAHOLALU VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R7, SRI. UDAY K.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R8-R17)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 IN R.A.3/2015-16 DATED 25.06.2016 AND LETTER OF NOTICE DATED 16.07.2016 ISSUED BY R-5 AT ANNEX-A & B.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners in this writ petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by respondent No.3 in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 and letter of notice bearing No.NA.KA.30/2016-17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexures-A and B.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.67 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Manchaholalu village, Akkihebbal Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

District was granted in favour of the petitioners' father one K.S. Hirianaiah by the Tahsildar vide order dated 15.10.1977. The said order has not been challenged by anybody. However, in the year 2001, one Puttaraju and other villagers have submitted the representation for cancellation of grant order dated 15.10.1977 before the Tahsildar, which was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 08.10.2001, issued an endorsement by forwarding the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner. Based on the said communication, the Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement dated 13.02.2002 by rejecting the proposal for cancellation of grant. Against the said endorsement, the villagers approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.239/2002, wherein the Tribunal on reassessment of entire documents and reports placed by the revenue authority including the order passed by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, rejected the appeal filed by the villagers and thereby confirmed the grant order made in favour of the petitioners' father in LND/LL/CR/200-77-78 dated 15.10.1997.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

In the meantime, the villagers interfered with the petitioners' possession in respect of the subject land, against which the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.62/2003 against the villagers for the relief of injunction and the said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet., (for brevity "the Trial Court") restraining the defendants i.e., the villagers interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petitioners suit schedule property vide judgment dated 19.03.2010. The said judgment has been challenged by the villagers in R.A.No.39/2010. The First Appellate Court, after reassessment of entire evidence on record placed before it, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 18.08.2012. In the meantime, the villagers i.e., the appellants before the Tribunal, once again approached the Assistant Commissioner against the grant made in favour of the petitioners in Dispute No.RD (K) 03/2015-16.

The Assistant Commissioner, upon re-appreciation, allowed the appeal and thereby cancelled the grant order made in favour of the petitioners in LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977 vide Annexure-A. Based on the said order,

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

respondent No.5 issued Annexure-B. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel Sri K.R. Lingaraju for Smt. Usha Lingaraju for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri Neelakantappa K. Pujar for respondent Nos.1 to 7 so also Sri Uday K.S. for Sri Nagabhushan for respondent Nos.8 to 17.

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondentsvillagers since the grant order dated 15.10.1977 was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal. He also contended that the villagers have challenged the grant order before the Assistant Commissioner after a lapse of 25 years from the date of grant order and after a lapse of 13 years from the date of order passed by the Tribunal. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner entertained the appeal belatedly. He further contended that while granting the land, the Tahsildar has obtained the spot inspection report from the concerned Revenue Inspector. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner has no

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to set-aside the order.

Per contra , learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the land in question is a forest land i.e., a gundu thopu. Hence, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to grant the said land in view of the provision under Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Further, the Assistant Commissioner is the appropriate authority to cancel the grant of gundu thopu/Government land. He also contended that the Tahsildar without properly considering the report filed by the Revenue Inspector, granted the Government land without any jurisdiction, which was wrongly confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by issuing endorsements. The said aspect has not even properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

Learned HCGP by supporting the impugned judgment passed by the Assistant Commissioner prays to dismiss the writ petition.

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

As could be gathered from records, initially the land was granted in favour of petitioners' father by the Tahsildar dated 15.10.1977 by receiving the upset price of Rs.112 per acre by exercising the power under Rule 7(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Thereafter, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the petitioners' father as per MR.No.1/78-79 as well as the RTC entries were also effected by assigning new number as Sy.No.67/B. Accordingly, the petitioners' father was in peaceful possession of the land in question. Subsequently, after the death of petitioners' father, the revenue entries were changed in the name of the petitioners. Though the said grant order is challenged by the villagers, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not cancelled the grant order. Nevertheless, in the appeal before the Tribunal by the villagers, the Tribunal while rejecting the appeal confirmed the grant order in LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977. Nonetheless, the petitioners also obtained a decree of injunction against the respondents in O.S.No.62/2003 which was confirmed in R.A.No.39/2010. Subsequently, after lapse of 13 years from the order of the Tribunal, the villagers once again approached

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

HC-KAR

the Assistant Commissioner by challenging the grant made in favour of the petitioners under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. No doubt under Section 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to cancel the grant of Government lands. However, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner goes contrary to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal, wherein the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal confirmed the grant made in favour of the petitioners in LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977. In such circumstance, the only remedy available to the respondentsvillagers to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal before this Court is by filing the writ petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Writ Petition is allowed .

ii. Writ of Certiorari is issued. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 is hereby quashed.

NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016

11 -

HC-KAR

iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners.

iv. The respondents are at liberty to challenge the Tribunal order in accordance with law.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of respondent No.3 (Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division) in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 allowing the villagers' dispute (RD (K) 03/2015-16) and cancelling the grant LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977 (Annexure-A), together with the letter/notice No.NA.KA.30/2016-17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by respondent No.5 (Deputy Tahasildhar) (Annexure-B).¶51
Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division (respondent No.3) · 25.06.2016
Prior proceeding
Land bearing Sy.No.67 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, Manchaholalu village, Akkihebbal Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District, granted by the Tahsildar to the petitioners' father K.S. Hirianaiah vide order dated 15.10.1977 (LND/LL/RC/200/77-78); the order was not challenged at the time.¶55
Prior proceeding
In 2001, one Puttaraju and other villagers sought cancellation of the grant before the Tahsildar; the proposal was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura, who by endorsement dated 08.10.2001 forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner.¶55
Prior proceeding
Deputy Commissioner, by endorsement dated 13.02.2002, rejected the proposal for cancellation of the grant.¶55
Prior proceeding
Villagers appealed to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.239/2002; the Tribunal rejected the appeal and confirmed the grant in favour of the petitioners' father.¶55
Prior proceeding
Revenue entries mutated in the name of the petitioners' father as per MR.No.1/78-79; RTC entries effected assigning new number Sy.No.67/B.¶73
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.62/2003: suit for injunction by petitioners against the villagers decreed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet, vide judgment dated 19.03.2010.¶58
Prior proceeding
R.A.No.39/2010: First Appellate Court dismissed the villagers' appeal, confirming the Trial Court's decree, vide judgment dated 18.08.2012.¶58
Prior proceeding
After lapse of 13 years from the Tribunal's order, the villagers again approached the Assistant Commissioner in Dispute No.RD (K) 03/2015-16 challenging the grant.¶58