Allowed¶90

Sri Rajegowda v. the Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2025WP/6461/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Site allotment cancellation; grama panchayat / taluk panchayat; hakkupatra and grant certificate dated 15.05.1987; building licence 2009-2010; fraud allegation vague and unsubstantiated; long-standing possession and house construction protected; accrued rights; Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav (2018) 12 SCC 527 relied on; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; Chief Executive Officer, Holenarasipura Taluk Panchayath order dated 07.01.2016 set aside; WP 6461 of 2016 (LB-RES), Karnataka HC, 03.06.2025; petition against deceased R3 abated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is set aside. ¶90

Sri Rajegowda Vs the Chief Executive Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is set aside.

¶90

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 of respondent No.1 cancelling the petitioner's allotment of Site No.11 - founded on doubts about the validity of the original 1987 allotment and an allegation of fraud - is legally sustainable.

¶51

Court's answer

Respondent No.1 has unequivocally admitted the allotment of the petition site to the petitioner under a grant certificate issued as far back as 1987, and that the petitioner obtained a valid building licence and constructed a residential house on the site.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

The allegation that the petitioner secured the allotment through fraudulent means is wholly unsubstantiated; there is no specific particulars or supporting material, and a vague and generalized accusation of fraud without elaboration or proof cannot be the basis for cancellation of an allotment made several decades ago.

¶67

Key takeaways

Cancellation of the petitioner's allotment after a lapse of nearly three decades, despite lawful possession since 1987, construction of a residential house with requisite permission and continued residence, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and legally unsustainable; the impugned order proceeds on a mere suspicion described vaguely as the allotment being 'doubtful', without credible or cogent material.ratio¶78
This Court placed reliance on Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, (2018) 12 SCC 527, underscoring protection of accrued rights and investments made pursuant to lawful allotments; the facts of the present case stand on a similar footing.ratio¶82

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum J.) allowed Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2016 (LB-RES) and set aside the order dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure-A) of the Chief Executive Officer, Holenarasipura Taluk Panchayath (R1), cancelling the petitioner's allotment of Site No.11 in Sy.No.82, Hallimysuru Village, originally made in 1987 and evidenced by a hakkupatra dated 15.05.1987 (Annexure-B). R1 had itself admitted the allotment, the grant certificate, the building licence (Annexure-D) and the construction of the petitioner's residential house; its plea that the allotment was procured by fraud was vague, generalized and wholly unsubstantiated, with no particulars or supporting material on record. Cancellation of a decades-old allotment backed by lawful possession, investment and continued residence, resting on a mere 'doubtful' suspicion without cogent material, was held arbitrary, unreasonable and legally unsustainable; reliance was placed on Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, (2018) 12 SCC 527, on protecting accrued rights and investments made pursuant to lawful allotments. The petition stood dismissed as abated qua the deceased third respondent without abating the entire proceeding.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6461 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAJEGOWDA

¶10

S/O HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR S, RESIDENT OF HALLIMYSURU VILLAGE & HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK

¶11

HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.BANNIKATTI DEEPAK.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶16

HOLENARASIPURA TALUK PANCHAYATH, HOLENARASIPURA,

¶17

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.

¶19

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE HALLIMYSURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH HALLIMYSURU VILLAGE & POST HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.

¶20

SRI. M.S. PUTTANNAYYA S/O N.P. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.502, 4TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ R/AT NEAR HANDE TEMPLE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. BOPANNA B, AGA FOR R-4, R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED AWARD ANNEXURE-A DTD 7.1.2016 BY THE R-1 AND ETC.,

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The caption petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 07.01.2016, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A.

¶32

None appears for petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

AGA appearing for respondent Nos.4. Respondent No.3 is

¶36

dead and the petition is dismissed as abated. However, the dismissal of the petition against respondent No.3 does not abate the entire proceeding since it was at respondent No.3's instance, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in regard to the genuineness of allotment of site to the petitioner way back in 1987.

¶37

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶38

The petitioner, a resident of Hallimysuru Village,

¶39

Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, was initially allotted

¶40

a site measuring 30 feet by 40 feet in Sy.No.82 by the Mandal Panchayat of Hallimysuru Village as early as in the year 1987. However, upon subsequent verification, the authorities found that a site of the said dimension was not available in Sy.No.82. Consequently, the authorities issued

¶41

a fresh allotment letter in favour of the petitioner in respect of Site No.11 situated in the same survey number. The hakkupatra evidencing this revised allotment is dated 15.05.1987 and is produced at Annexure-B.

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner

¶45

claims that his name was duly mutated in the katha records corresponding to Site No.11. He further contends that during the year 2009-2010, he obtained a building license from the competent Grama Panchayath and thereafter constructed a residential house on the said site. A copy of the building license is produced and marked as Annexure-D. Photographs showing the existence of the constructed residential house are also placed on record and are marked as Annexure-E.

¶46

The petitioner is now aggrieved by the

¶47

cancellation of the allotment in respect of Site No.11. The cancellation was effected based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.3, pursuant to which respondent No.1 initiated an enquiry. It is the petitioner’s grievance that although the enquiry officer, during the course of the enquiry, acknowledged that the petitioner fell below the poverty line and was indeed eligible for allotment, the officer nevertheless expressed doubts regarding the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

validity of the original allotment and, on that basis, proceeded to cancel the same. It is this cancellation order that is now under challenge in the present petition.

¶52

This Court has carefully examined the records placed before it. The observations made by respondent No.1 during the enquiry are particularly pertinent. While answering Issue No.2, respondent No.1 has opined as follows:

¶53

"«ªÁzÁA±À 2 PÉÌ ಸಂಬಂ��ದಂ�ೆ 2 £ÉÃ ಎದುರು�ಾರರು �ಾವ��ೇ �ಾಖ�ೆಗಳನು� �ಾಜರುಪ��ರುವ��ಲ� . ಆದರೂ ಅ"#�ಾರರು $ೕ�ರುವ �ಾಖ�ೆ ಮತು' 2 (ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರ )ಾ*�ೋ+�(ೋ�ದ,ೆ 1987 ರ+� 2 (ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರು -�ಾ./#�ಾ0ದು1 ಸದ2ಯವ24ೆ 5ೇವಲ 3 ಎಕ,ೆ 20 ಗುಂ7ೆ ಜ8ೕ$ದು1 ಸದ2 ಜ8ೕನು 2 (ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರ ತಂ�ೆ ಮತು' ಅವರ 9ಕ:ಪ;ನ ನಡು=ೆ >ಾಲು ಆಗ?ೇ5ಾ0ರುತ'�ೆ . ಸದ2 -ಷಯಗಳನು� ಅವ�ೋA�ದ,ೆ 2 (ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರ ಕುಟುಂಬವ� $ಯCಾನು)ಾರ ಬಡತನದ ,ೇDೆ0ಂತ 5ೆಳ0ರುತ'�ೆ . ಆಶFಯ ಮ(ೆ Gೕಜ(ೆ ಬಡತನದ ,ೇDೆ0ಂತ5ೆಳ4ೆ ಇರವವ24ೆ $ೕಡುವ��ಾ0ರು�ೆ'�ೆ . ಈಅಂಶಗಳನು� ಪ2ಗJ� ಮಂಜೂ,ಾKಈ-=ಾ�ಾಂಶ5ೆ: ಸ2Lದ1ರೂ$ಯCಾನು)ಾರಆಶFಯಮ(ೆ Gೕಜ(ೆಯ� 4ಾFಮಪಂMಾL'ಗN4ೆ ಒಬP ಪ�ಾನುಭ-4ೆ 5ೇವಲ 30X40 ಅ� Rಾಗವನು� CಾತF ಅಂದ,ೆ 1200 ಚ . ಅ� ಮಂಜೂರು Cಾಡಲು ಅವ5ಾಶ-ರುತ'�ೆ . ಅದA:ಂತ ºÉaÑ£À Rಾಗವನು� ಮಂಜೂರು Cಾಡಲು ಅವ5ಾಶ-gÀÄ¢®è. -=ಾ�ತºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ಸದ2Rಾಗವ� 25x98 ಅ�ಇದು1 ಸದ2Rಾಗವ� ಒಟುU 2450 ಚದುರಅ��ಾ0ರುತ'�ೆ . ಸದ2Rಾಗವ� ಇಬPರು

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ಫ�ಾನುಭ-ಗN4ೆ ಹಂಚಬಹು�ಾ0ರುತ'�ೆ . ಅಲ � ೇ Xೕ�ೊ�ೕಟ5ೆ: ಸದ2ಹಕು: ಪತFವ� ಸಂಶ�ಾಸ;ದ=ಾ0ದು1 ಒಂ�ೇ �ನ 2 ಹಕು: ಪತFಗಳನು� $ೕ�ರು�ಾ',ೆ."

¶58

7. This court has also examined the statement of

¶59

objections filed by respondent No.1. Paragraph No.5 would be relevant and the same is extracted, which reads as

¶60

follows:

¶61

"5] It is submitted, admittedly site was allotted and grant certificate was issued to the petitioner in the year 1987. He obtained license to construct house and is residing in the said house but the document is not identified by the authority granted. The said farudulant act came to know after complaint by 3rd respondent and enquiry conducted by the 1st respondent. It is true that revenue records of the property stands in the name of petitioner but the same was obtained by fraudulent act. Grant certificate itself is a doubtful document."

¶62

Upon a close scrutiny of the observations and

¶63

findings recorded by respondent No.1/authority during the enquiry proceedings, coupled with the categorical admissions made in the statement of objections filed before this Court, it becomes manifest that respondent No.1 has unequivocally admitted the allotment of the petition site in favour of the petitioner. It is clearly

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

acknowledged that the site in question was allotted to the petitioner under a grant certificate issued as far back as in the year 1987. Respondent No.1 has further admitted that pursuant to such allotment, the petitioner obtained a valid building license from the competent Grama Panchayath and, based on such license, proceeded to construct a residential house on the said site.

¶67

Although respondent No.1, in its statement of objections, seeks to justify the impugned action by alleging that the petitioner secured the allotment through fraudulent means, this allegation of fraud remains wholly unsubstantiated. There is a conspicuous absence of any specific particulars or supporting material either in the findings of the authority or in the pleadings filed before this Court to sustain such a serious charge of fraud. The record is bereft of any evidence that would indicate manipulation, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner. The vague and generalized accusation of fraud, without any elaboration or proof,

¶68

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

cannot be the basis for cancellation of an allotment made

¶72

several decades ago.

¶73

What further fortifies the petitioner’s case is the admitted position that he has been in lawful possession of the site since 1987, has constructed a residential house thereon by securing the requisite permission from the local authority, and continues to reside therein. The existence of the residential structure is evidenced by the photographs marked at Annexure-E, and this fact has not been disputed by respondent No.1. In fact, the very statement of objections filed by respondent No.1 reinforces the petitioner's claim, as it reiterates that a residential house has been constructed on the allotted site after due permission.

¶74

In the light of the above undisputed and material facts, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned action of respondent No.1 in cancelling the petitioner's allotment, after a lapse of nearly three

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

decades, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, and legally unsustainable. The petitioner has constructed a residential house by investing his hard-earned money, relying on a valid and lawful allotment made in his favour by the competent authority. The authority, while conducting the enquiry, has failed to appreciate the long-standing possession and investment made by the petitioner. The impugned order of cancellation proceeds on a mere suspicion described vaguely as the allotment being "doubtful" without being supported by any credible or cogent material.

¶79

Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court, not only undermines the sanctity of administrative allotments made through due process but also ignores the settled principle that long-standing possession and development of the property cannot be lightly disturbed without the clearest justification. This Court also finds it appropriate to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chhedi Lal

¶80

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav , [(2018) 12 SCC 527] wherein the Apex Court underscored the importance of protecting accrued rights and investments made pursuant to lawful allotments. The facts in the present case stand on a similar footing.

¶83

A right that has crystallized over the course of nearly three decades backed by lawful possession, construction of a house, and continued enjoyment of the property cannot be nullified on vague and unsubstantiated grounds. The action of respondent No.1, in issuing the cancellation allotment , is thus tainted with legal infirmity and stands vitiated. Accordingly, this Court finds sufficient ground to interfere and set aside the impugned order.

¶84