- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 6461 OF 2016 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJEGOWDA S/O HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR S, RESIDENT OF HALLIMYSURU VILLAGE & HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.BANNIKATTI DEEPAK.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER HOLENARASIPURA TALUK PANCHAYATH, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. 2. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER THE HALLIMYSURU GRAMA PANCHAYATH HALLIMYSURU VILLAGE & POST HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211. 3. SRI. M.S. PUTTANNAYYA S/O N.P. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.502, 4TH CROSS 2ND BLOCK, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATHRAJ R/AT NEAR HANDE TEMPLE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. BOPANNA B, AGA FOR R-4, R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) 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., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The caption petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 07.01.2016, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A. 2. None appears for petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 AGA appearing for respondent Nos.4. Respondent No.3 is 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. 3. Facts leading to the case are as under; The petitioner, a resident of Hallimysuru Village, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District, was initially allotted 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 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 4. Pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner 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. 5. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 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. 6. 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: "«ªÁzÁA±À 2PÉÌ ಸಂಬಂದಂೆ 2£Éà ಎದುರುಾರರು ಾವೇ ಾಖೆಗಳನು ಾಜರುಪರುವಲ. ಆದರೂ ಅ"#ಾರರು $ೕರುವ ಾಖೆ ಮತು' 2 (ೇ ಎದುರುಾರರ )ಾ* ೋ+ (ೋದ,ೆ 1987 ರ+ 2 (ೇ ಎದುರುಾರರು -ಾ./#ಾ0ದು1 ಸದ2ಯವ24ೆ 5ೇವಲ 3 ಎಕ,ೆ 20 ಗುಂ7ೆ ಜ8ೕ$ದು1 ಸದ2 ಜ8ೕನು 2 (ೇ ಎದುರುಾರರ ತಂೆ ಮತು' ಅವರ 9ಕ:ಪ;ನ ನಡು=ೆ >ಾಲು ಆಗ?ೇ5ಾ0ರುತ'ೆ. ಸದ2 -ಷಯಗಳನು ಅವೋAದ,ೆ 2 (ೇ ಎದುರುಾರರ ಕುಟುಂಬವ $ಯCಾನು)ಾರ ಬಡತನದ ,ೇDೆ0ಂತ 5ೆಳ0ರುತ'ೆ. ಆಶFಯ ಮ(ೆ Gೕಜ(ೆ ಬಡತನದ ,ೇDೆ0ಂತ 5ೆಳ4ೆ ಇರವವ24ೆ $ೕಡುವಾ0ರುೆ'ೆ. ಈ ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಪ2ಗJ ಮಂಜೂ,ಾK ಈ -=ಾಾಂಶ5ೆ: ಸ2Lದ1ರೂ $ಯCಾನು)ಾರ ಆಶFಯ ಮ(ೆ Gೕಜ(ೆಯ 4ಾFಮಪಂMಾL'ಗN4ೆ ಒಬP ಪಾನುಭ-4ೆ 5ೇವಲ 30X40 ಅ Rಾಗವನು CಾತF ಅಂದ,ೆ 1200 ಚ.ಅ ಮಂಜೂರು Cಾಡಲು ಅವ5ಾಶ-ರುತ'ೆ. ಅದA:ಂತ ºÉaÑ£À Rಾಗವನು ಮಂಜೂರು Cಾಡಲು ಅವ5ಾಶ-gÀÄ¢®è. -=ಾತ ºÀPÀÄÌ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ ಸದ2 Rಾಗವ 25x98ಅ ಇದು1 ಸದ2 Rಾಗವ ಒಟುU 2450 ಚದುರ ಅಾ0ರುತ'ೆ. ಸದ2 Rಾಗವ ಇಬPರು - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 ಫಾನುಭ-ಗN4ೆ ಹಂಚಬಹುಾ0ರುತ'ೆ. ಅಲೇ Xೕೋಟ5ೆ: ಸದ2 ಹಕು: ಪತFವ ಸಂಶಾಸ;ದ=ಾ0ದು1 ಒಂೇ ನ 2 ಹಕು: ಪತFಗಳನು $ೕರುಾ',ೆ." 7. This court has also examined the statement of objections filed by respondent No.1. Paragraph No.5 would be relevant and the same is extracted, which reads as follows: "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." 8. Upon a close scrutiny of the observations and 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 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. 9. 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, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 cannot be the basis for cancellation of an allotment made several decades ago. 10. 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. 11. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 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. 12. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 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. 13. 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. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this court passes the following order. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18662 WP No. 6461 of 2016 (ii) The impugned order dated 07.01.2016, passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A is hereby set aside. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28