- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13492 WP No. 23814 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 23814 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B M NETRAVATHI W/O B M MANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT BALEKODLU GUDDEKOPPA VILLAGE, UNTOOR KATTE KAIMARA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA 577432 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.M.ASHWATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA 577201 3. THE TAHASILDAR THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, THIRATHAHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA 577432 4. RAMAPPA B L S/O LOKAPPA, 5. KRISHNAPPA S/O LOKAPPA, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13492 WP No. 23814 of 2024 R-4 AND R-5 ARE R/AT GUDDEKOPPA VILLAGE, UNTOOR KATTE KAIMARA POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA 577432 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED. 13.05.2024 PASSED BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN REV.R.NO. 54/2019 (ANNX-A), ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of grant made in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 was called in question before the Deputy Commissioner and the same was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and, as a consequence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 2. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Tahsildar, Thirthahalli had conducted an enquiry into the application filed by the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13492 WP No. 23814 of 2024 and had found that she was holding 2 acres 12 guntas of wet and 3 guntas of garden land and, therefore, she would be entitled for only 4 guntas areca garden, which was accordingly recommended and also granted to her. 3. The petitioner however contends that the grant in favor of respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the extent of 1 acre 2 guntas and 1 acre was improper since she was not in possession as required under the provisions of the Act. 4. The order of the Tribunal indicates that before the recommendations for grant was made, the proposed objections were called for the proposed grants. 5. It is admitted by the petitioner that she did not file any objections to the grants proposed to be made in favor of respondent Nos.4 and 5. If the petitioner had not filed objections, to the proposed grants made in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 would be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13492 WP No. 23814 of 2024 impermissible for her to contend that she was ineligible for being granted the land. 6. The Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing in the revision. 7. I find no reason to entertain this petition and this petition is therefore dismissed. 8. 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.: 6