1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.30262 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. H.K. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O LATE KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS RESIDING AT BALAGADY BINTRAVALLI VILLAGE KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 577 126. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAJ D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 577 101. 2 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 577 101. 4. THE TAHSILDAR KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 577 126. 5. SMT. VIMALA LOUISE W/O P.T. LOUISE AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.113 MARAKADA VILLAGE DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALURU TALUK KARNATAKA - 575 015. 6. SRI. THOMAS JOSEPH S/O P.T. JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT BINTRAVALLI VILLAGE BAYADI POST KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 126. 7. SRI. NITIN KUMAR M.N. S/O NARAYANA POOJARI AGED MAJOR RESIDIN AT MAKKI MANE SOMALAPURA VILLAGE MARITHOTALLU GRAMA PANCHAYATI KACHKALLU POST, KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) 3 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2024 PASSED BY THE CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSING THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING RP NO.105/2016-17 VIDE ANNEXURE - A. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER The petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the order of the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner which is impugned in the present petition evidenced at Annexure-A. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of the petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.188 measuring 4 acres. At the instance of the petitioner wherein complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional Tahsildar to recall the grant made in favour of respondent No.5 on the ground that respondent No.5 has 4 violated the terms and conditions of the grant. This complaint was entertained and respondent No.5's grant was subjected to enquiry to ascertain whether there is violation of terms and conditions. In the first round of litigation, Tahsildar accepted the allegations and was of the view that respondent No.5 has violated the terms and conditions of the grant. Accordingly, grant was cancelled. The matter was taken up to this Court by filing a writ petition by the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.33019/1995. This Court quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the matter was remitted back to respondent No.4/Tahsildar for fresh consideration. 3. After remand, respondent No.4/Tahsildar has conducted denovo enquiry and referring to the records found that respondent No.5 is in possession through her GPA holder i.e., respondent No.6. This possession through GPA holder according to Tahsildar does not violate the grant conditions. This order was challenged by the petitioner 5 herein by preferring an appeal before the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner. Assistant Commissioner while affirming the order of the respondent No.4/Tahsildar, however, found that respondent No.5 is in possession in excess of what was granted i.e., 30 guntas. Accordingly, directed the authorities to evict respondent No.5 and her GPA holder. While dismissing the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner also noted that petitioner's claim is not supported by any grant order. This order is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the grounds urged in the writ petition. 5. The primary issue that requires consideration by this Court is whether the petitioner has locus standi to contest the enquiry concerning the alleged violation of the grant obtained by respondent No.5. Upon careful examination of the material on record, this Court finds that 6 the petitioner lacks the requisite locus to challenge the proceedings or the subsequent orders passed by the authorities. The petitioner has not been able to establish any legal or possessory right over the land in question. His claims remain unsubstantiated, and he has failed to demonstrate any direct or indirect interest in the property that would entitle him to maintain this petition. Consequently, his challenge to the findings of the authorities is legally untenable. 6. Furthermore, the Tahsildar, after conducting a thorough enquiry, arrived at the conclusion that there was no violation of the grant conditions. This determination was not made in isolation but was subsequently affirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The authorities, at every stage, have meticulously examined the records and consistently held that there is no breach of the grant conditions. The concurrent findings by the statutory 7 authorities and the Appellate Tribunal are based on a proper appreciation of the available records and do not suffer from any legal infirmity. In light of this, the petitioner’s contentions against the findings of the authorities cannot be sustained. 7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner does not possess any legitimate right or claim over the land in question and, therefore, lacks the necessary locus standi to impugn the orders passed by the authorities. While the petitioner has placed reliance on certain documents in an attempt to establish that he has a valid grant in his favour, a detailed scrutiny of these documents particularly Annexures-B and B1 reveal that they do not confer any enforceable right upon him. The said documents, on their plain reading, do not support the petitioner’s claim of ownership or possession over the land, nor do they create any vested interest in his favour. 8 8. In view of the foregoing, the grounds urged in the present petition are legally unsustainable. Since the petitioner has no lawful right or title over the subject land, his challenge to the orders of the authorities is devoid of merit. The authorities have acted well within their jurisdiction and in accordance with law while adjudicating upon the matter, and there is no justifiable reason for this Court to interfere with their well-reasoned findings. Therefore, the petition, being devoid of merit, does not warrant interference by this Court and is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA