- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.26707 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.RAMESH S/O LATE HIRIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT KOGILE MANE VILLAGE BIKKODU HOBLI BELUR TALUK-573115 HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHANTHA KUMAR K C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDINGS AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-571187 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKLESHPURA SUB DIVISION SAKLESHPURA-573127 HASSAN DISTRICT Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 4. THE TAHASILDAR BELURU TALUK BELURU-573115 HASSAN DISTRICT 5. HIRIGAIAH S/O UDDAIAH DEAD BY LRS SRI.PUTTASWAMY S/O HIRIGAIAH AGE MAJOR 6. SRI.RAVI S/O HIRGIGAIAH AGED MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT SHANKARDEVAR PETE KASABA HOBLI BELUR TALUK-573115 HASSAN DISTRICT 7. MANJAIAH S/O UDDAIAH @ UDDA DEAD BY LRS SMT. HALAMMA W/O THAMMANI AGE MAJOR R/AT AMBEDKAR NAGAR BALUPETE BELAGOD HOBLI SAKALESHPUR TALUK-573127 HASSAN DISTRICT 8. SMT.HEMA W/O NIRAVANAIAH AGE MAJOR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 R/AT RAMANAGAR AREHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI BELUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573115 9. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O RANGASWAMY AGE MAJOR R/AT MUDDAGHATTA VILLAGE BIKKODU HOBLI BELUR TALUK-573115 HASSAN DISTRICT 10. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR AGE MAJOR 11. SMT. RUKMINI W/O ANNAPPA AGE MAJOR RESPONDENT NOS.10 AND 11 ARE RESIDING AT KOGILE MANE VILLAGE BIKKODU HOBLI BELUR TALUK-573115 HASSAN DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4; V/O/D 13.01.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R.5 AND R.6 IS DEFFERRED FOR TIME BEING) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06/12/2023 IN RA NO.146/2022-23 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 passed by respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-G. 2. The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.96 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Kogilumane Village, Bikkodu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan. The petitioner is asserting right based on the Grant Certificate dated 03.03.2004. On an appeal filed by private respondents, respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner and conducted an enquiry to ascertain whether the grant is genuine. 3. On enquiry, respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner found that the petitioner was not eligible to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 secure the land and accordingly, proceeded to cancel the grant made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is holding excess land. 4. This order was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner in R.A No.444/2003-04. The Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. This compelled the petitioner to file a revision before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.4/2011. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 04.03.2016 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and matter was remitted back to respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner. 5. The petitioner’s primary contention before this Court is that though the matter was remitted to respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner suo moto taken up the matter for consideration vide Annexure-F and therefore, it is argued that post remand by the Karnataka Appellate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 Tribunal, respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner is yet to conduct a fresh enquiry by affording opportunity to the petitioner. 6. Learned AGA, however, by placing original records, she would point out that it is the petitioner, who has mislead the Authorities. Though the matter was remitted to respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner. It is forthcoming from records that respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner has declined to entertain the petitioner's grievance in regard to cancellation of the grant on the premises that the matter is now seized before respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 25.06.2020. Therefore, referring to these significant details, the petitioner’s counsel would point out that there is no fresh enquiry post remand order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.4/2011 and therefore, this order - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 needs to be set-aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to respondent No.3–Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry. 7. Upon a careful examination of the original records presented by the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), it becomes evident that there is a significant degree of confusion in the manner in which Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, and the present petitioner have handled the proceedings, thereby complicating the case at hand. Although the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had remanded the matter to Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner for further proceedings, Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, unexpectedly and without any apparent legal basis, proceeded to take up the matter for enquiry, as evidenced by the document marked as Annexure-F. 8. Simultaneously, respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner also initiated proceedings following the remand order issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 However, in view of the submissions made by the respondents, indicating that the matter was actively being considered before Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 25.06.2020, disposed of the proceedings, thus avoiding any potential jurisdictional overlap or conflict. 9. Despite having acknowledged the remand order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, after taking cognizance of the same, proceeded to once again remit the matter to Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, as reflected in Annexure-F. In the meantime, the petitioner, in an attempt to challenge the legality of the proceedings, filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Nevertheless, Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, adhering to the directives of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, continued with the enquiry - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 and allowed the petitioner to present their case before making a final determination on the issue. 10. A meticulous review of the order passed by Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner reveals that the remand order issued in Revision Petition No.4/2011 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has been duly considered in the proceedings under challenge. Additionally, Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, while taking into account the Tahasildar’s report dated 27.11.2023, unequivocally arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner does not qualify for a grant under Rule 108(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Furthermore, Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner found that the petitioner lacks the necessary eligibility criteria to claim the said grant. In light of these findings, the authority also referred to Rule 108(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, and subsequently dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 11. At first glance, the arguments advanced by the petitioner appear to have merit; however, upon a deeper examination of the order in question, it becomes abundantly clear that Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner has not adjudicated the matter under the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Instead, the enquiry has been conducted strictly in accordance with the directives outlined in the remand order issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.4/2011. Additionally, Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, upon re-evaluating the records and affording the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case, reaffirmed the conclusion that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria for grant. Consequently, it was determined that the original grant was erroneously issued and was therefore liable to be cancelled. As a result, Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner issued the order dated 06.12.2023, as documented in Annexure-G, thereby rejecting the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 petitioner’s alternative request for the mutation of his name in the relevant land records. 12. While there may be certain procedural irregularities in the manner in which Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner conducted the enquiry, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order nonetheless aligns with the directives issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal when it remanded the matter back to Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner. Moreover, the issue of the genuineness of the grant has been comprehensively examined by Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, who has scrutinized all relevant records, particularly the report submitted by Respondent No.4 – the Tahsildar. 13. In view of the aforementioned findings, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s grievance, as articulated in Annexure-G, regarding the mutation proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, appears to be misconceived. It has also - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 come to the Court’s attention that Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner had, in fact, remitted the matter to Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh enquiry. A careful perusal of Annexure-F makes it amply clear that Respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner refrained from re-examining the proceedings and instead opted to drop the matter, indicating that it was to be adjudicated by Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner. 14. In light of the directions issued by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.4/2011, and given that the matter has been appropriately dealt with by the designated authority, this Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere. The order passed by Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner must be challenged before the appropriate authority in the manner prescribed by law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary powers in favor of the petitioner, and no indulgence is warranted in this matter. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:3567 WP No. 26707 of 2024 The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13