- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13136 WP No. 6269 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 6269 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. YASHODAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDEGOUDA, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O TELAGINKUPPE VILLAGE, RAVANDURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, DISTRICT MYSORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR-571105. 3. THE TAHSILDAR PERIAPATNA TALUK, PERIAYPATNA, DIST MYSORE-571107. 4. SUSHILAMMA W/O T.K.SHIVANNEGOUDA, R/O OF TELAGINKUPPE VILLAGE, RAVINDRA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, DISTRICT MYSORE-571107. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13136 WP No. 6269 of 2018 5. SHIVANNEGOUDA S/O LATE KULLEGOUDA, R/O OF TELAGINKUPPE VILLAGE, RAVINDRA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK DISTRICT MYSORE-571107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. B.S.NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 AND R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL OR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED GRANT AT ANNEXURE-C DATED:27.11.2002 AND VIDE No LND(1)1444/98-99 PASSED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO IA-38G IN SY NO.32/9 OF TELAGINKUPPE VILLAGE, RAVANDURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, DISTRICT MYSORE AND FURTHER THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-D DTD29.7.2015 AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN R.P.NO.28/2015-16 DTD8.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13136 WP No. 6269 of 2018 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner challenging the grant which had been made in favour of the 4th respondent herein. 2. It was the contention of the petitioner that she had been granted the land earlier in point of time and the contesting respondents on the basis of subsequent grant were attempting to claim the land granted to her. 3. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal, however, very strangely, he proceeded to hold that the petitioner was in not in possession of the land granted to her and therefore, proceeded to cancel the grant. He also came to the conclusion that the subsequent grant made in favour of respondents 4 and 5 will have to be confirmed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13136 WP No. 6269 of 2018 4. In other words, in an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the grant of the contesting respondents, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved, a revision was preferred and the said revision has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Both the authorities have recorded a clear finding that both the petitioner as well as the respondents 4 and 5 have been granted the very same land. The authorities, however, have not recorded a finding as to whether the grants were overlapping grants. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner has noticed that only the northern boundaries of the granted lands were similar and the other three boundaries were completely different and has therefore observed that the lands granted to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were different. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13136 WP No. 6269 of 2018 7. In my view, since the authorities have not doubted the grant of the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents, the authorities could not have cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner herein and as a consequence, they could not have confirmed the grant made in favour of the contesting respondents. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to him to ensure that durasti is conducted in respect of land granted to the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents and thereafter, fix the relevant boundaries of their lands. 8. The observations of the Deputy Commissioner that the orders passed by him was subject to the result of the suit would be superfluous order since it is stated that the suit filed in O.S.No.281/2013 is only a suit for injunction and it is therefore clear that no proprietary rights of either of the parties would be decided. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13136 WP No. 6269 of 2018 9. The Assistant Commissioner shall undertake and complete the exercise as aforesaid within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49