Sri Chikkaputtanna Vs Government of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Chikkaputtanna Vs Government of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed. Impugned orders dated 27.10.2018 in RP.No.48/2013-14 (WP No.56247/2018) and RP.No.47/2013-14 (WP No.56267/2018) and the order dated 24.06.2013 in Appeal R.A.(De)229/2008-09 quashed; matters remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law by extending opportunity to the petitioners and respondent No.5 to urge all their contentions, directing the Assistant Commissioner to take note of the grants made in favour of the petitioners' father/grandfather in 1959 and subsequently in favour of the petitioners in 1992.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Assistant Commissioner (allowing R.A.(De)229/2008-09 and cancelling the grants under Rule 108K) and of the Deputy Commissioner (confirming them in revision) — passed without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners — are sustainable in law. +1 more

Court's answer

The Assistant Commissioner ought not to have cancelled the grant without issuing notice and without giving the petitioners an opportunity to put forth their claim in the proceedings under Section 136(2).

Ratio / Principle

The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not followed the principles of natural justice, and both the impugned orders are not sustainable under law.

Key takeaways

The matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner by extending opportunity to the petitioners and the contesting respondent No.5.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Land Revenue — Mutation entries MR.No.44/2003-04 (1 acre 19 guntas) and MR.No.41/2003-04 (1 acre 15 guntas) in Sy.No.79, Aradeshahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, resting on the 1949 purchase by Doddapapanna, his registration as occupant under Section 5, Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (11.08.1959, Annexure-J), and the 1992 Regularization Committee grant followed by Official Memorandum (18.06.1994) and saguvali chit (26.09.1994) — challenged by Respondent No.5 under Section 136(2), Karnataka Land Revenue Act — Assistant Commissioner, without notice to the grantees, allowed the appeal and cancelled the grants under Rule 108K, Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, on the footing that the lands are 'katte karab lands'; Deputy Commissioner confirmed in Revision Petitions Nos.47 and 48 of 2013-14 — Held: failure to follow principles of natural justice renders both orders unsustainable; writ petitions allowed, both orders quashed, and matters remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioners and Respondent No.5, with a direction to take note of the 1959 and 1992 grants. (Rajesh Rai K, J., 12.11.2025)

NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 56247 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 56267 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

IN WP No. 56247/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI CHIKKAPUTTANNA, S/O LATE DODDAPAPANNA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI A P NAGESH, S/O LATE CHIKKAPUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

DEVANAHALLY TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

THE TAHASILDHAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

SMT. BHARATHI, W/O KEMPANNA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT SURADHENUPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, ARADESHAHALLI POST, VIA-DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 110.

SRI C NAGARAJA, S/O SRI CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ARADESHAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS (i) IN REVISION PETITION 48/2013-14 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AND, (ii) IN APPEAL R.A.NO.(De) 229/2008-09 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

- 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, AT PRESENT SHIFTED TO DODDABALLAPUR ETC.

IN WP NO. 56267/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI C NAGARAJA, S/O SRI CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ARADESHAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA.R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLY TALUK,

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

THE TAHASILDHAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

SMT. BHARATHI, W/O KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SURADHENUPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, ARADESHAHALLI POST, VIA-DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562 110.

SRI CHIKKAPUTTANNA, S/O LATE DODDAPAPANNA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI A P NAGESH SON LATE CHIKKAPUTTANA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT ARADESHAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI SHIVAKUMAR.N, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; R-6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS (i) IN REVISION PETITION 47/2013-14 ON THE FILE OF THE R-2, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AND, (ii) IN APPEAL R.A.NO.(De) 229/2008-09 ON THE FILE OF THE R-3, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, AT PRESENT SHIFTED TO DODDABALLAPUR ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Respondent No.6 in WP.No.56247/2019 is the petitioner in WP.No.56267/2018. Hence, notice to respondent No.6 is dispensed with.

In these writ petitions, petitioners sought writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 27.10.2018 passed in RP.No.48/2013-14 (in WP.No.56247/2018) and RP.No.47/2013-14 (in WP.No.56267/2018) by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A in both the cases, so also to quash the order dated 24.06.2013 passed in Appeal R.A.(De)229/2008-09 by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-B in both the cases and to confirm the mutations in MR.No.44/2003-04 in respect of 1 acre 19 guntas (in WP.No.56247/2018) and in MR.No.41/2003-04 in respect of 1 acre 15 guntas (in WP.No.56267/2018), both situated in Sy.No.79, Aradeshahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'subject lands').

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

The grievance of the petitioners is that one Doddapapanna, who is the father of the petitioner in WP.No.56247/2018 and grandfather of the petitioner in WP.No.56267/2018 had purchased the subject lands along with other land vide sale deed dated 26.07.1949. Thereafter, in pursuance of the abolition of inams, Doddapapanna has been registered as an occupant under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 on 11.08.1959 as per Annexure-J. After the death of Doddapapanna, the petitioners were continued in possession and occupation of the said lands. Subsequently, the Regularization Committee of Unauthorized Occupation of Lands, granted the subject land in favour of the petitioner in both the cases in a proceedings dated 24.06.1992 and Official Memorandum was issued vide order dated 18.06.1994. Subsequently, the saguvali chit was issued in the name of the petitioner in both the cases on 26.09.1994. Accordingly, the mutation entries were effected in their

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

names in the year 2004, since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject lands.

Things stood thus, respondent No.5 in both the petitions initiated proceedings before respondent No.3/ Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Taluk by questioning the mutation entries effected in the name of the petitioners under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner, without issuing any notice to the petitioner in both the cases, allowed the appeal of respondent No.5 and thereby, canceled the grants made in favour of the petitioner in both the cases under Rule 108K of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, on the ground that the subject lands are the 'katte karab lands'. Against the said order, the petitioners approached respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition Nos.47 and 48 of 201314. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in RA.No.229/2008-09. The said order is challenged in these writ petitions.

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so

also the contesting respondent No.5 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in both the cases.

The primary contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners is that, the regularization committee granted subject lands under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 vide order dated 24.06.1992 and an Official Memorandum was issued in the year 1994. Accordingly, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the petitioners. The respondent No.5 who is totally a stranger and nowhere concerned to the subject lands has raised an objection in respect of the mutation entries. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner without issuing notice and providing an opportunity to the petitioners, unilaterally, passed the impugned orders by canceling the grant. Hence, the said orders have to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.5 opposed the prayer.

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the subject lands are Government Karab Lands and as per the provision under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, the Assistant

Commissioner is empowered to cancel the grant order.

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, it could be gathered from records, the subject lands were granted to the father and grandfather of the petitioners in the year 1959 and subsequently, in the year 1992 by the regularization committee and the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject lands. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have cancelled the grant without issuing notice and without giving opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their claim by placing the

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

relevant documents in proceedings under Section 136(2).

Hence, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not followed the principles of natural justice and both the orders are not sustainable under law. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner by extending opportunity to the petitioners and the contesting respondent No.5. Hence, the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petitions is allowed .

ii) Impugned orders dated 27.10.2018 passed in RP.No.48/2013-14 (in WP.No.56247/2018) and RP.No.47/2013-14 (in WP.No.56267/ 2018) and order dated 24.06.2013 passed in Appeal R.A.(De)229/2008-09 are quashed.

iii) Matters are remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law by extending opportunity

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:46014 WP No. 56247 of 2018 C/W WP No. 56267 of 2018

HC-KAR

to the petitioners and the respondent No.5 to

urge all their contentions.

iv) The Assistant Commissioner shall take note of the grants made in favour of petitioners' father and grandfather in the year 1959 and subsequently, in favour of the petitioners in

the year 1992.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9