THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. HARIJAN YERRISWAMY S/O SMT BASAMMA
WA/100471/2025 · 2025-09-02
S Sunil Dutt Yadav, Vijaykumar A Patil
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37893 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37893 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11435-DB WA No. 100471 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.100471 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.
3.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.
4.
THE TASHILDAR, BALLARI TALUK, DISTRICT BALLARI-583101.
5.
THE SPL. TASHILDAR, KURAGOD, DIST. BALLARI-583116. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA)
AND:
1.
HARIJAN YERRISWAMY S/O SMT. BASAMMA AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE.
2.
HARIJAN HUCHCHAMMA D/O BASAMMA AGE. 62 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O. EMMIGANUR VILLAGE, TQ. & DIST. BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11435-DB WA No. 100471 of 2025
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2023 IN W.P.NO.108553/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present appeal is filed by the State which was the respondent in the writ proceedings. 2. The writ petition was filed by the grantees challenging the order at Annexure-G dated 03.07.2017, whereby the grant made to the petitioners came to be cancelled invoking the provision under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’) read with Section 25 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’). - 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11435-DB WA No. 100471 of 2025
3. It is to be noticed that the order at Annexure-G was on the premise that the grant that was made was required to be cancelled in light of non-adherence to the conditions of grant regarding cultivation. Further, it was also observed that there was violation of Rule 108-K of the Rules. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Single Judge by a detailed order noticed that the power under Rule 108-K is a power to be exercised for cancellation of grant when grant has been obtained by making a false and fraudulent representation or is contrary to Rules. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the only ground made out in the impugned order at Annexure-G was the action for resumption arose in light of petitioners not cultivating the land. While observing so, it was held that the power under Rule 108-K could not have been exercised in the present case as the grounds made out
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11435-DB WA No. 100471 of 2025
at Annexure-G were different and the writ petition came to be rejected. 5. Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised the contention that the condition of grant not having been fulfilled, the action was taken. It was contended that action could have been taken under Rule 108-J of the Rules. 6. It must be noticed that the grant admittedly was made in the year 1978. The notice for cancellation of grant was only in the year 2017. If that were to be so, power conferred under the Rules was sought to be exercised after an unreasonable period of time. 7.
Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 09.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.108553/2017 and find that the order at Annexure-G was rightly interfered with by the writ Court. 8. In light of the above, the appeal is rejected. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11435-DB WA No. 100471 of 2025
9. In light of rejection of appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed off. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE
RKM/VP, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2