1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22754 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMANI W/O JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NEAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE KUNIGAL TOWN AND TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 130. AND ALSO R/AT CHOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 131. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION 2 HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201. 4 . THE TAHASILDAR CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK-573 116. 5 . SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 6 . SRI. RANGEGOWDA S/O. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 7 . SRI.RAMESH S/O. AMASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 8 . SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O. CHUNCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 9 . SRI. ASHOKA S/O. CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 10 . SRI. DORESWAMYM .S S/O. SHIVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 11 . SMT. SANNAMMA W/O. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3 12 . SRI. MANJEGOWDA S/O. RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R-5 TO R-12 ARE RESIDING AT CHOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 TO R12; SRI. JOSE VERGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PUNITH .S, ADVOCATE OF IMPLEADING APPLICANTS IN I.A.No.1/2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 40/2022-23 (ANNEXURE-A), SET ASIE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.07.2024 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEUXRE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER Petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, who has effectively concurred with the findings 4 of the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, however, while proceeding to dispose of the revision filed by the private respondents has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4/Tahsildar. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner is tracing title through his father Venkatarama Deekshith. Petitioner asserts that authorities have granted 4 acres in Sy.No.30, Block No.12 and 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.30, Block No.13. Petitioner to substantiate title over the petition land has placed on record copy of grant certificate which is evidenced at Annexure-C. Petitioner who claims to be the daughter of the original grantee is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents/authorities who failed to effect pavathi katha by restoring her father's name to the RTC which is discontinued after introduction of computerized RTC. This prompted petitioner to file appeal in R.A.No.157/2020-21 5 with a prayer to restore petitioner's father's name in the computerized RTC and thereafter effect inheritance katha. The petitioner herein filed an another appeal in R.A.No.694/2022-23 as the order passed by respondent No.3 in R.A.No.157/2020-21 was not a speaking order. Respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed respondent No.4 to create RTC in respect of 8 acres of land in Sy.No.30 block 12. Petitioner claims that pursuant to direction issued by the respondent No.3, concerned Revenue Inspector has drawn Mahazar thereby indicating the actual cultivation undertaken by the petitioner's father. Respondent Nos.5 to 12 who are also asserting title based on grant to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.30 challenged the order of the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.157/2020-21 and the order passed in R.A.No.694/2022-23 in W.P.No.2060/2023. Petitioner also filed W.P.No.12800/2023 seeking a mandamus against 6 the respondent to consider her representation wherein a request is made to conduct hadbasth of petition land in Sy.No.30 block 12 and fix boundaries. This Court clubbed all the three petitions and vide common order dated 04.06.2024 directed respondent No.2 to decide the proceedings pending in R.A.No.40/2022-23. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.12800/2023, respondent No.2 passed an order on 30.07.2024 in R.A.No.40/2022-23. 3. The petitioner’s primary contention in the present case is that the order passed by respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-A, though concurring with the findings recorded by respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, is internally inconsistent. Specifically, the operative portion of the impugned order contradicts the reasoning provided while disposing of the appeal filed in R.A.No.40/2022-23. The petitioner asserts that the grant of land in favour of his father predates any 7 claim made by the private respondents. As such, they cannot assert any right or claim over the said land, as it was lawfully granted to the petitioner’s father much earlier. 4. In support of his case, the petitioner argues that the authorities have appropriately exercised their statutory powers under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. He submits that respondent No.3, the Assistant Commissioner, after due consideration of the facts and legal position, had passed a well-reasoned and justified order. However, respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order, has acted in a manner that suffers from serious legal and procedural infirmities, warranting the intervention of this Court. 5. Furthermore, the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that he has already initiated civil proceedings by filing a suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.69/2023, which is currently pending before the Civil 8 Court. This, he contends, further strengthens his case, as the dispute over title and possession is already sub judice before a competent civil forum. Therefore, in light of these circumstances, he seeks appropriate relief from this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for private respondent Nos.5 to 12 has contested this petition by filing statement of objections. While refuting the averments made in the writ petition, respondent Nos.5 to 12 have questioned the reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner while allowing the appeal filed in R.A.No.157/2020-21. Respondent Nos.5 to 12 contend that appeal filed in R.A.No.157/2020-21 is not maintainable in view of appeal filed by the present petitioner in R.A.No.694/2022-23. Therefore, he would contend that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner having noticed that there are two conflicting grants, one in favour of petitioner's father and one in favour of private respondent Nos.5 to 12 was justified in setting aside the order of the respondent 9 No.3/Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner was also justified in remitting the matter to respondent No.4/Tahsildar to hold a fresh enquiry and this order therefore, may not warrant indulgence at the hands of this Court since it is only a remand order by keeping all contentions open. 7. Respondent Nos.5 to 12 have specifically contended that they are in exclusive possession of 2 acres each in Sy.No.30 as absolute owners and they have constructed a residential house and have availed power supply from CESCOM and the names are rightly reflected in the respective revenue records based on grant made in their favour in 1994-95. Private respondents also claim that they have planted coconut trees in their respective lands. Private respondents also assert that they are having irrigation facilities through bore well. 10 8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants has strenuously argued that the proposed respondents are necessary parties to the present writ petition. He contends that the writ petition cannot be effectively adjudicated in their absence, as the impleading applicants have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The impleading applicants assert that the petitioner and her husband had initially offered to sell the property in question, pursuant to which a sale agreement was executed in favour of the husband of respondent No.13 and her father. Subsequently, the husband and father-in-law of respondent No.13 entered into another sale agreement, transferring their interest in favour of the impleading applicants. It is further alleged by the impleading applicants that respondent No.13 had given assurances that she would procure all necessary documents and facilitate the execution of a registered sale deed in favour of their father- 11 in-law. Moreover, the impleading applicants claim that they are in exclusive possession of the land in question. Interestingly, despite asserting possession, they base their claim of title solely on an agreement of sale, which, as per settled legal principles, does not confer ownership rights. In the alternative, the impleading applicants submit that they have applied for regularization of the land by filing an application in Form No.57, which is currently pending consideration before the competent authority. 9. Learned HCGP referring to the original records, however, would submit to this Court that the land granted to petitioner and the one granted to respondent Nos.5 to 12 are distinct and separate . Therefore, referring to the original records, he would point out that there is no conflict or overlapping of lands held by petitioner and private respondent Nos.5 to 12. While petitioner's claim relates to Sy.No.30, Block No.12, private respondent Nos.5 to 12 are granted land in Sy.No.30. Therefore, he would point out 12 that the private respondent Nos.5 to 12 have no locus to resist and dispute the grant made in favour of petitioner's ancestor. 10. Having heard learned counsel on record, this Court proceeds to examine the records furnished by the petitioner. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the statement of objections and annexures annexed to the writ petition. This Court has also examined the claim of the impleading applicants. This Court has meticulously gone through the pleadings averred in the impleading application. The following points would arise for consideration: 1) Whether the impleading applicants are necessary party to the captioned petition and the land relating to mutation entries pertaining to Sy.No.30, Block No.12 cannot be decided in absence of impleading applicants? 2) Whether the order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is perverse and contrary 13 to the mandate provided under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964? Findings on Point No.1: 11. Before this Court delves upon to examine the rights of the impleading applicants, this Court deems it fit to take note of para 3 of the affidavit which has a direct bearing on impleading applicants rights. Para 3 of the affidavit sworn in support of the application is culled out which reads as under: "3. I state that the petitioner has not stated all other facts correctly in the petition, especially that the impleading applicants were in peaceful possession since more than 30 years. Since 1988, the land has been in the possession of the father-in- law and husband of the respondent No.13, and since 1996, a sale agreement was entered into, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- (One lakh forty thousand only). The petitioner and her husband had executed this sale agreement in favour of the husband of respondent 13 and respondent No.13, and assured that soon after obtaining all relevant revenue records with respect to the schedule 14 properties, they will execute the registered sale deed in favour of my father in law. But the petitioner and her husband did not keep the promise and kept on delaying the same. The impleading respondents were in cultivating possession of the said land, and were growing crops like ragi, jola and there were coconut trees on the land implanted by them. They were the absolute owners the said property, both by long possession and the sale agreement dated 13/12/1996 followed by possession. The sale agreement of 13/12/1996, though unregistered deed nevertheless executed by H.V.Nagamani who is petitioner herein, and she had received full lawful consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- (One lakh forty thousand only) only from them. A copy of the sale is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1." 12. On meticulous examination of the averments, it is clearly noticed that impleading applicants are tracing their rights based on an agreement to sell obtained from an agreement holder, that is from husband of respondent No.13. Respondent No.13 in-turn appears to have secured an agreement from petitioner and her husband. Therefore, 15 impleading applicants are tracing possessory rights through sale agreement dated 13.12.1996. 13. The contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants that the impleading applicants possessory rights will be affected in the event there is execution of change of katha in RTC pertaining to the petition land, is totally misconceived and beyond the scope of enquiry under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Learned Senior Counsel further assertion that impleading applicants are in possession and the same is evident from para 25 of the writ petition and therefore, impleading applicants are necessary party also cannot be entertained in the light of the order passed on the application filed by the impleading applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 in O.S.No.367/2021. The impleading applicants have suffered an order and trial Court has declined to grant injunction. 16 14. On examining these significant details, this Court is of the view that impleading applicants rights cannot be adjudicated in a mutation proceedings. The scope of enquiry provided under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is very limited. Section 128 mandates change of katha based on registered documents or acquisition of right either by exchange, gift, lease, sale and grant. In the present case on hand, petitioner is seeking restoration of her father's name based on a grant order which is of the year 03.02.1964. Impleading applicants are asserting possessory rights on the basis of agreement to sale obtained from an agreement holder and not from the owner. Therefore, impleading applicants are neither a necessary nor proper party to section 128 proceedings. 15. Be that as it may, considering the limited scope of inquiry under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the rights claimed by the impleading applicants, which are based solely on an agreement of sale, 17 cannot be adjudicated under this provision. It is well settled that an agreement of sale does not confer any ownership rights, and therefore, the impleading applicants cannot derive any legal entitlement over the property through such an agreement. Their claim is misconceived and unsustainable in law. 16. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the impleading applicants and is not inclined to grant any indulgence in their favour. Furthermore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the application, I.A.No.1/2024, stands rejected. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative. Findings on Point No.2: 17. The petitioner contends that her father was granted 4 acres of land in Sy.No.30, Block No.12, and an 18 additional 4 acres and 10 guntas in Sy.No.30, Block No.13, pursuant to a grant order dated 03.02.1964. She asserts that following the grant, her father’s name was duly mutated based on the grant order and the subsequent issuance of the Saguvali Chit by the competent authority. The mutation of her father’s name was recorded under M.R.No.7/1980-81. These factual aspects are substantiated by documentary evidence produced as Annexures-B, C, and D, which include the mutation records, the grant certificate in Form No.1, and the Durasti/Phodi orders. 18. The petitioner’s primary grievance arises from the fact that her father, Venkatarama Deekshith, passed away on 16.01.1982, and as his sole Class-I legal heir, she is entitled to seek Pauti Katha (inheritance mutation). However, despite her father’s demise, the revenue authorities have failed to effectuate the mutation of her name through inheritance Katha. She further asserts that her father’s name was consistently reflected in Columns 9 19 and 12 of the revenue records from 1982 to 2001. However, with the advent of computerized revenue records, she has been aggrieved to find that her father’s name is no longer reflected in the digital records. To substantiate this claim, she has produced the relevant RTC extracts, marked as Annexures-G, H, J, K, and K1. 19. Upon a meticulous examination of the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner while disposing of the appeal in R.A.No.694/2022-23, it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner conducted a detailed perusal of the original records. Based on this examination, the Assistant Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that the grant in favour of the petitioner’s father with respect to Sy.No.30, Block No.12, and Sy.No.30, Block No.13 was genuine. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner determined that the petitioner’s father’s name ought to be restored in the computerized Katha and accordingly issued necessary directions to that effect. 20 20. While respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner has, in principle, concurred with the findings, observations, and reasoning assigned by the Assistant Commissioner, an inconsistency arises in the operative portion of the Deputy Commissioner’s order. Strangely, despite agreeing with the conclusions drawn by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, in the final direction, proceeds to set aside the well-considered order and remits the matter back for fresh consideration. This apparent contradiction between the reasoning and the operative portion of the order necessitates scrutiny by this Court. Prima facie, the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner appear to be in conflict with the final decision rendered. Therefore, this Court deems it necessary to extract and examine the reasoning assigned by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner while disposing of the appeal in R.A.No.40/2022-23. 21 " ಾದ-ಾದ ಾಗೂ ೆಳ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಕಡತವನು ಪೕಸಾ, ಚನ ಾಯಪಟ"ಣ $ಾಲೂ%ಕು, ಶ'ವಣ(ೆಳ)ೊಳ ೋಬ+, ,ೌ.ೇನಹ+0 ಸ.ನಂ 30/12 ರ% 04-00 ಎಕ ೆ ಾಗೂ ಸ.ನಂ 30/13 ರ% 0-10 ಗುಂ4ೆ ಖ ಾಬು 6ೇ 04-10 ಎಕ ೆ ಜ8ೕನನು 3ೇ ಪ'9ಾ:ರವರ ತಂ;ೆ ೆಂಕಟ ಾಮ :ೕ=> @A ಕೃಷDಪE ರವ)ೆ ಎF.ಎH.I.21/64-65, ಎF.ಎH.I.:ಎH.ಎA.J: 58/64-65 ರಂ$ೆ ಜ8ೕನು ಮಂಜೂ ಾದುK, ಮಂಜೂ ಾ9 ;ಾಖೆ ಲಗ9LMರು$ಾL ೆ. ಪ'6ಾLIತ ಜ8ೕನು ಎಂ.ಆO. 7/81- 82 ರಂ$ೆ ಹಕುP ;ಾಖಾ 1981-82 ಂದ 2000-2021 ರ ೈಬರಹ ಪಹRಯ% ನಮೂ;ಾರುತL;ೆ. ಗಣSೕಕರಣ ಪಹRಯ% ಮಂಜೂ;ಾರರ ೆಸರು ನಮೂ;ಾಗ;ೆ ಸಾT )ೋUಾಳ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ;ಾರುತL;ೆ. ಸಾಯಕ ಆಯುಕLರು, ಾಸನ ಉಪWಾಗ, ಾಸನ ರವರ ಆ;ೇಶ ಸಂ. ಆO.ಎ.694/2022-23, :ಾಂಕ 25-11-2022 ರಂ$ೆ ಸಾT )ೋUಾಳ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ;ಾರುವ 08-37 ಎಕ ೆ XೈS 08-10 ಎಕ ೆ ಜ8ೕYನ ಹಕPನು ೆಂಕಟರಮಣ :ೕ=> @A ಕೃಷDಪE ರವ)ೆ ಹಕುP ;ಾಖಸಲು ಆ;ೇMರು$ಾL ೆ. 1 ಂದ 8ೇ Zೕಲ[ನ;ಾರ)ೆ ಪ'6ಾLIತ ಸ.ನಂರ% ತಾ 02-00 ಎಕ ೆ ಜ8ೕನು ಮಂಜೂ ಾರುವ\;ಾ 9+MದುK, ಮಂಜೂ ;ಾಖೆಗಳ] ಕಡತದ% ಲಗ9Lರುವ\:ಲ%. XೈS ಆO.^.Mಗಳ] ಲಗ9LರುತL;ೆ. Uಾನ ಉಚ_ ಾ ಾಲಯದ% ` I^ಷA ಸಂaೆ 2202/2023 ಮತುL 2060/2023 ನು ;ಾಖMರು$ಾL ೆ. ಮುಂ:ನ ,ಾರbಾ :ಾಂಕದವ ೆಗೂ ಾವ\;ೇ ಕ'ಮ ೈ)ೊಳ0ದಂ$ೆ ಉಪWಾ)ಾcಾಗ+)ೆ Y;ೇTMರು$ಾL ೆ. Zೕಲ[ನ;ಾರರೂ ಕೂಡ Uಾನ ಉಚ_ ಾ ಾಲಯದ% ` I^ಷA ಸಂaೆ. 12800/2023 ನು ;ಾಖMದುK, dಾ%cಾಗಳ ಾ ಾಲಯದ% ಆO.ಎ.40/2022-23 ರಂ$ೆ ಪ'ಕರಣ ;ಾಖMದುK, ಇತಥTಾಲ%;ೇ ಇರುವ\ದಂದ ಸದ ಪ'ಕರಣ ಇತಥTಾಗುವವ ೆ)ೆ ಪಗRಸುವ\ದು ಸೂಕLವಲ% ಎಂದು Y;ೇTMರು$ಾL ೆ. 22 ಉಪWಾ)ಾcಾ, ಾಸನ ರವರ ಾ ಾಲಯದ% ತಹMೕಾKO ಚನ ಾಯಪಟ"ಣ ರವಂದ ಪತ' ಸಂaೆ ಆO.ಆO.^. (9) 24/22-23, :ಾಂಕ 29-08-2022 ರಂದು ವರ: ಪ.ೆ:ರುವ\ದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತL;ೆ. ಸದ ವರ:ಯನgಯ ೆ.,ೌ.ೇನಹ+0 )ಾ'ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ 30 ರ ಮೂಲ MLೕಣT 143-34 ಎಕ ೆ ಜ8ೕYದುK, ೊಸ ಸ.ನಂ 99, 101, 102, 106 ೆP ದುರML)ೊ+M ಪಹR ಇಂJೕಕರಣ)ೊಂಡು ಮೂಲ ಸ.ನಂ 30 ರ% 124-24 ಎಕ ೆ ಲಭರುತL;ೆ ಎಂದು ಆO.^.M. 9ದುKಪJ ಬ)ೆi ವರ: ಸ%MದುK, ಸದ ವರ:ಯನgಯ ಆO.^.Mಯ% ;ಾಖಾ9ಗಳ ಆjಾರದ Zೕ ೆ ೆಲವ\ aಾ$ೆ;ಾರರ ೆಸರನು ೈ@ಟು" 08-37 ಎಕ ೆ ಜ8ೕನನು ಸಾT )ೋUಾಳ ಎಂದು ನಮೂ:M ಸದ MLೕಣTವನು 3ೇ ಪ'9ಾ: ತಂ;ೆ ೆಂಕಟರಮಣ :ೕ=> ರವ)ೆ ;ಾಖMರುವ\ದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತL;ೆ. ZೕಲPಂಡ ಎಾ% ಅಂಶಗಳನgಯ ಕಾTಟಕ ಭೂಕಂ;ಾಯ ಾlK 1964 ರ ಕಲಂ 136(3) ರ ೕ$ಾ ಪ'ದತLಾರುವ ಅcಾರದಂ$ೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ;ೇಶ." 21. On closer examination of the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner, it is clearly evident that Deputy Commissioner has concurred with the findings recorded by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. Same is evidenced from the culled out paragraphs. However, in the operative portion, the well considered order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is 23 set aside. The operative portion is found to be contrary to the reasons assigned in the preceding paragraphs. Since both the authorities have concurrently come to conclusion that there is a grant in favour of petitioner's father way back in 1964 and the grant records and other supporting revenue documents are looked into by both the authorities, this Court is of the view that respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner clearly erred in remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The order of remand clearly suffers from perversity. The Deputy Commissioner in the preceding paragraphs has concluded that the records reveal that there is a grant in favour of petitioner's father. Having accepted the findings and having concurred with the Assistant Commissioner's reasoning, the remand order clearly suffers from perversity and therefore, the same is not at all sustainable. 22. As stated by learned HCGP, while petitioner's grant is in Sy.No.30, Block Nos.12 and 13, the grant 24 obtained by private respondent Nos.5 to 12 is in respect of Sy.No.30. The State admits that Sy.No.30 is a larger extent and therefore, respondent Nos.5 to 12 have to work out their remedies by approaching the competent authorities and seek phodi and hadbasth of the land that is granted to them. The authorities by spot inspection have to carve out the land in Sy.No.30 and Sy.No.30, Block Nos.12 and 13. Private respondents land has to be identified in Sy.No.30. 23. The impugned reversal order passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner having concurred with the Assistant Commissioner's order clearly contravenes the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nadakerappa since deceased by Lrs. and Others vs. Pillamma Since deceased by Lrs. and Others1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has clearly 1 2022 SCC Online SC 387 25 held that there cannot be casual remand unless it is supported by reasons. 24. In the case on hand, the Deputy Commissioner has concurred with the findings, reasons arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner but, however, in the operative portion, contrary to reasons assigned in the preceding paragraphs, has proceeded to reverse the order of the Assistant Commissioner. No reasons are forthcoming for reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable even on this count. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative. 25. 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 in 26 R.A.No.40/2022-23 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set aside; (iii) Consequently, the order passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.694/2022-23 vide Annexure-M is restored. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA