- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 58711 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 58709 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) IN WP No. 58711/2015 BETWEEN: SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI IRAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A HOOHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 4. TAHSILDAR AND SECRETARY, LAND GRANT COMMITTEE, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 5. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NARAYANAPPA 6. N. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NARAYANAPPA 7. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O VENKATASWAMY 8. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NARAYANAPPA RESP. NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/A HOOHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 9(a) 9(b) 9(c) VENKATASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LR'S NARAYANASWAMY, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, MUNINARAYANA, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RANGAPPA, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 RESP. NO.9(a) TO 9(c) ARE R/A HOOHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. LOKESH MURTHY M., ADV. FOR R5, R6 AND R8, R9(a) &R9(b) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025, NOTICE TO R9(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT.) [CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED V/C/O DATED: 26.03.2025.] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2014 PASSED BY R-2 IN R.A.55/2010-11 AT ANNEX-A. IN WP NO. 58709/2015 BETWEEN: IRGAPPA S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O HOOHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 4. TAHSILDAR AND SECRETARY, LAND GRANT COMMITTEE, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 5. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NARAYANAPPA 6. N. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NARAYANAPPA 7. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O VENKATASWAMY 8. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT MAJOR, S/O NARAYANAPPA RESP. NO.5 TO 8 ARE R/A HOOHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 9(a) VENKATASWAMY SINCE DEAD BY LR'S NARAYANASWAMY, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 9(b) 9(c) MUNINARAYANA, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RANGAPPA, S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESP. NO.9(a) TO 9(c) ARE R/A HOOHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. 10. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O IRGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A HOOHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. LOKESH MURTHY M., ADV. FOR R5, R6 AND R8, R10 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, V/O DTD: 19.11.2019 SERVICE IS RESPECT OF R7 HELD SUFFICIENT, R9(a) &R9(b) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025, NOTICE TO R9(c) HELD SUFFICIENT.) [CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED V/C/O DATED: 26.03.2025.] THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.2.7.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN R.A.55/2010- 11 VIDE ANNX-A. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of regularisation of unauthorized occupation of the petitioner's husband's possession for grant of 01 acre 30 guntas (without mentioning the survey number) was made in favor of the petitioner on 21.07.2005. 2. Pursuant to the said order of grant, a mutation was effected in respect of Sy.No.9999 to the extent of 01 acre 30 guntas in the name of petitioner. 3. This grant was challenged by the villagers by filing an appeal, but the said appeal was dismissed. 4. The villagers took up the matter to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner owned the following extents, totally measuring 07 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 acres 30 guntas and as a consequence, the petitioner was ineligible to be granted the land: Sl. No. Survey Numbers Extent of land held by the petitioner's husband & his family (Acre-Guntas) 1 21/1 01-06 2 35/3 00-09 1/2 3 18/1 02-02 4 19/1 01-26 5 21/2 01-27 5 83 00-30 TOTAL: 07 acre 30 guntas 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that this finding is factually incorrect and reliance is placed on the RTCs in respect of the survey numbers which are mentioned in the order of the Deputy Commissioner to establish that the extents mentioned therein were incorrect. 6. A perusal of the RTCs, which are produced at Annexure 'R2', indicate that the husband of the petitioner is the owner of the following extents, as compared to the extents mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 Sl. No. Survey Numbers Extent of land held by the petitioner's husband & his family (acre-guntas) 1 18/1 00-02 2 19/1 00-16.08 3 21/1 00-23 4 21/2 00-22 5 32/2 00-07 6 32/4 00-23 1/2 7 35/3 00-09.08 8 70/* 00-36 9 83/* 01-00 10 83/* 00-30 11 9999/* 01-30 12 17 00-30 13 37 00-35 09-25 7. This discrepancy in the extents, on comparison with the RTCs, would therefore indicate that the order of the Deputy Commissioner in coming to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner held lands in excess of 04 acres 38 guntas and therefore, the petitioner was ineligible to be granted, cannot be sustained. 8. The Deputy Commissioner in fact has gone on to even cancel 30 guntas of land which was not even - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 challenged and which had been made in favor of the petitioner's husband in the very same impugned order. Obviously, such a course of action by the Deputy Commissioner was impermissible. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to examine the RTCs in respect of the lands mentioned above and thereafter, record a finding as to whether the husband of the petitioner could be considered as a person who was a sufficient holder1 as defined under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. 10. If the Deputy Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner, as a matter of 1 2. Definitions.--In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires.--(1) x x x (15) "Sufficient holder" means a person who owns not less than four hectares of garden or wet land possessing facilities for assured irrigation or 8 hectares of dry or rain fed wet land. Explanation. - If a person owns more than one class of land, the extent owned by him for purposes of this clause shall be determined by converting the extent of different classes of lands into the equivalent extent of lands as follows:- One hectare of garden land or one hectare of wet land possessing facilities for assured irrigation shall be deemed to be equivalent to two hectares of rain fed wet land or dry land. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13938 WP No. 58711 of 2015 C/W WP No. 58709 of 2015 fact, as per the revenue records, was a sufficient holder, he will be at liberty to cancel the grant made in favor of the petitioner. 11. If, on the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner, on verification of the records, comes to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner was not a sufficient holder, the grant made in favor of the petitioner shall be affirmed. 12. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. 13. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55