- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2351 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: CHANDRAKALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS W/O T.R. KESHAVAMURTHY R/AT TALAGURU VILLAGE KUDLIPETE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT PIN-571235. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY .H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI-571201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB DIVISION MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201. 4. TAHSILDAR SOMWARPET TALUK, VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571235. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 5. AKRAMA SAKRAMA SAMITHI TALUK OFFICE, SOMWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571235 REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2, DATED 04.09.2019 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION, MADIKEIR DATED 01.12.2015, BY CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R-5 INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 10.04.2012, MEASURING 1 ACRE 2 CENTS AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.12 OF TALAGURU VILLAGE, KUDLIPETE HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in cancelling the grant made by the respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 2. The petitioner, in the present writ petition, has primarily challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by respondent No.3, as per Annexure-B, on the ground that the said order is non-est in law and suffers from total non-application of mind. It is contended that although the proceedings are purportedly initiated against the petitioner, as reflected in the cause title of the impugned order, the discussion and findings recorded therein pertain to an entirely different individual. The petitioner asserts that the documents relied upon by respondent No.3 do not pertain to her, and further, in the operative portion of the order, respondent No.3 has referred to the issuance and subsequent cancellation of the saguvali chit granted to one A.B. Shambulingaiah @ B. Basavanayya. This, according to the petitioner, clearly establishes that the order is passed without due application of mind and in disregard of the petitioner’s case. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 3. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, while confirming the order of respondent No.3, has failed to rectify or even advert to the fundamental flaw apparent on the face of the record, thereby perpetuating the illegality committed by respondent No.3. 4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 5. Though the learned AGA has sought to persuade this Court not to interfere with the impugned orders by contending that the Deputy Commissioner has elaborately examined the material on record and has concurred with the findings of respondent No.3, this Court is not inclined to accede the said submission. 6. Upon perusal of Annexure-B, it is patently clear that although the proceedings are ostensibly initiated against the petitioner, the enquiry and findings recorded - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 therein are with reference to another individual. This is borne out by the cause title and further corroborated by the operative portion of the impugned order. In this context, it would be apposite to extract the operative portion of Annexure-B, which reads as under: "ಪಾವೆಯ ವ ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಗಣೆೆ ೆೆದುೊಂಡು 1ೇ ಪ !ಾ"ಗ#ಾದ ಎ.&.ಶಂಭು ಂಗಯ(, &) &.ಬಸವಣ,ಯ(, ಅವ-ೆ.ಾಳ/ ಾಮ 1ಾಗೂ 2ೇ ಪ !ಾ"ಗ#ಾದ 2ೕಮ ಪ3ಾವ , ೋಂ ಎ.&.ಶಂಭು ಂಗಯ(, ಅವ-ೆ.ಾಳ/ ಾಮರವ ೆ ೋಮ!ಾರ4ೇ5ೆ ಾಲೂಕು ಅಕಮ-ಸಕಮ ಸ8 ಯ 9ಾ:ರುವ ೋಮ!ಾರ4ೇ5ೆ ಾಲೂಕು ೋಮ!ಾರ4ೇ5ೆ 1ೋಬ;, ಅವ-ೆ.ಾಳ/ ಾಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.128/20ರ 1.35 ಏೆ ಜ8ೕ>ನ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ ಯನು ಕಾ?ಟಕ ಭೂ ಕಂ.ಾಯ >ಯ9ಾವ; 1966ರ >ಯಮ 108K ಪಾರ ವAಾೊ;, ಸದ ಜ8ೕನನು ಎBಾ ಋಣ3ಾರಗ;ಂದ ಮುಾಯೊ; ಸಾ?ರದ ವಶೆD ೆೆದುೊಳEಲು ಆ.ೇ2.ೆ. ಈ ಆ.ೇಶವನು "ಾಂಕ:1/12/15 ರಂದು ಮುಕ ಾ(Hಾಲಯದ IೂೕJ.ೆ." 7. A plain reading of the operative portion of the order at Annexure-B unmistakably reveals that the entire enquiry conducted by respondent No.3/Assistant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 Commissioner is vitiated, as it does not pertain to the saguvali chit issued in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings, although titled in the name of the petitioner, evidently deal with the grant and cancellation of a saguvali chit relating to a third party, namely, one A.B. Shambulingaiah @ B. Basavanayya. This fundamental flaw renders the entire proceedings legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the impugned order is devoid of any reference to the material placed on record by the petitioner. There is neither any discussion nor any analysis of the documents relied upon by the petitioner in defence of the validity of his grant. The Assistant Commissioner has failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner or to undertake a proper enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed. 8. Significantly, the impugned order also does not satisfy the requirements laid down under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The scope of enquiry under Rule 108-K is limited and circumscribed, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 requiring a focused determination on the validity or otherwise of the grant in question, based on specific grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, or procedural irregularities. However, in the present case, the order neither delineates the grounds on which the grant in favour of the petitioner is sought to be cancelled nor does it record any findings in that regard. The Deputy Commissioner, while deciding the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, has failed to apply his mind to these critical deficiencies. The appellate order merely reiterates the reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner, without undertaking an independent evaluation of the factual matrix or the legal issues involved. This mechanical concurrence further compounds the illegality and demonstrates a lack of due diligence on the part of the appellate authority. Both the orders, being devoid of proper enquiry and reasoned findings, and having failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner, are - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20032 WP No. 2351 of 2020 rendered unsustainable in law. Accordingly, both orders are liable to be quashed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A and the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B are hereby set aside; (iii) The matter stands remitted back to respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry; (iv) It is made clear that the enquiry, if any, shall be strictly adhering to the mandate provided under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42