- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17214 WP No. 21484 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 21484 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C.M. NAGARAJ S/O LATE MARIGOWDA @ ANKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O C.M. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE MATTURU PSOT SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DIST-577 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVION SHIVAMOGGA DIST.-577 201. 3. THE TAHASILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVMOGGA DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577 201. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17214 WP No. 21484 of 2022 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA MAJOR SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE MATTURU POST SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DIST-577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. HARISH .N.R, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2021 MADE IN LND CR 113/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A grant made in favour of the petitioners herein was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order has set aside the grant on two grounds. 2. Firstly on the ground that the land that had been rendered to the petitioners was lying within 5 kms and secondly, on the ground that the petitioners’ family owned a total extent of 8 acres 12 guntas and, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17214 WP No. 21484 of 2022 therefore, was ineligible for the grant. This order of the Assistant Commissioner has been confirmed by the Deputy Commission and, as a consequence, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. It is the case of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner has not even taken into consideration the distance between the land granted to the petitioners as on the date of the application. He submits that the fundamental requirement in ascertaining the distance between the municipal limits and the granted land is to the date of the application and not on the date of the grant is absent. 4. Secondly, as far as the holding that is referred to in the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the learned Senior counsel submits that all these lands were acquired subsequent to the application that had been made by the petitioners which was in the year 1991 and, therefore, these holdings would be of no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17214 WP No. 21484 of 2022 relevance for the purpose of considering the eligibility of the grant. 5. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not indicate as to whether this contention was considered by the Assistant Commissioner or by the Deputy Commissioner. If the petitioners can establish that the land that had been granted to him was beyond 5 kms as on the date of the application and if he can further establish that as on the date of the application he did not hold the land stated in the impugned orders, the eligibility of the petitioners to be granted with the land would always be available. 6. In that view of the matter, in my view, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain and record as to whether the granted land was beyond 5 kms as on the date of the previous application which is stated to have been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17214 WP No. 21484 of 2022 made in the year 1991 and as to whether the lands that he has noticed that the petitioners owns were acquired after the application or after the land was granted to them. 7. Since the parties are represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 26.05.2025. 8. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47