- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 11557 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K. S. NANJUNDASWAMY, S/O LATE SRI. SUBBARAYA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT KONAYAKANAHALLI, MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 216. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MUNIRAJA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN – 573 201. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 206. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING IN APPEAL NO.258/2014 DT.26.09.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DT.31.8.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS PER ANNEXURE- G & FURTHER TO QUASH THE ACQUISITION NOTIFCIATION DATED 3.6.1989 WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO.8 FROM THE NOTIFICATION PASSED BY THE R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND ETC., Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 26.09.2017 in Appeal No.258/2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-A) and order dated 31.08.2013 (Annexure-G) in LND(2)/17/2006-07 passed by respondent no.2 and the Notification dated 03.06.1989 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent no.2 2. I have heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Muniraja.M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manjunath.K, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 to 3. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 29.05.2006 in W.P.No.479/2002 (Annexure-E) and contended that, the total extent of land in Block Nos.39 and 40 is 72 acres. Out of which, 50 acres has been already granted, however, insofar as, 22 acres of land is concerned, application has been made seeking occupancy rights and same has not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 been considered by respondent no.2 after remand made by this Court as per Annexure-E and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy commissioner, at Annexure-G dated 31.08.2013 requires reconsideration in the light of the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.479/2002 dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure-E). He further contended that, the order dated 31.08.2013 has been erroneously confirmed in Appeal No.258/2014 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-A) and therefore, sought for interference. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP referred to the order dated 04.03.1999 in WP.No.14500/1996 connected with W.P.No.16470/1996. This Court rejected the writ petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that, no application has been made by the petitioner herein seeking occupancy rights in respect of the entire extent of land in 72 acres of land and, he further contended that, the said order of rejection of the writ petitions was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2693-94/1999 dated 30.07.1999 and therefore, as the claim made by the petitioner herein has reached finality and, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 W.A.No.2693-94/1999, impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities requires to be confirmed in this writ petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, and on careful examination of the writ papers, it would indicate that, the order of re-grant was made on 19.06.1964 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Mysore Division, Mysore (Annexure-B), with regard to different blocks mentioned therein and, also insofar as the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner in Block No.14 as per Annexure-C to the writ petition. 6. In the backdrop of these aspects and on careful consideration of the order dated 04.03.1999 in W.P.No.14500/1996, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2693-94/1999, it is apparent that, this Court has rejected the writ petitions made by the petitioners herein stating that, the petitioners have not so far been granted occupancy rights to the entire extent of 72 acres and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted 50 acres in Block No.14 and therefore, rejected the claim. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 7. It is also forthcoming from the observation made by this Court in W.P.No.479/2002 dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure-E) wherein, the contentions were raised before this Court with regard to the extent of Register No.1, where the document would indicate the entry as block Nos.39 and 40, this Court at paragraph 6 has held as follows : "6. In the background of the above, I am of the view that on the available records, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion on facts and therefore, the order dated 24.8.2001 does not calls for interference. However, since I have come to the conclusion that Annexure-J1 which has been relied upon by the petitioners cannot be brushed aside, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file necessary application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, by producing the extract of Register No.1 relied on by the petitioners and also indicating the details of the rectification applications filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition so as to indicate that Sy.Nos.1 and 6 in the impugned notification dated 3.6.1989 are the very same lands which has been granted to the petitioners as block nos.39 and 40 by order dated 19.6.1964. Since the Tribunal has indicated that insofar as Sy.No.17 there is certain indication that the same correlates to block - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 no.14, what is required to be established by the petitioners in respect of Sy.No.17 is that the entire extent of 72 acres notified in the impugned notifications was granted to the petitioners and the same had been left out by mistake and therefore, the rectification has been sought. The petitioners after pursuing the rectification application and obtaining such rectification may approach the Deputy Commissioner indicating their right over the property measuring 22 acres tin Sy.No.17 which is notified. In the event of the petitioners producing necessary docume3nt and making appropriate applications before the Deputy Commissioner to delete Sy.Nos.1, 6 and 17 indicated at item no.8 of the notification dated 3.6.1989 bearing no.Darkhasthu-(2) 27: 89- 90, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with law after ascertaining the genuineness of the extract of Register No.1 produced by the petitioners and thereafter, if satisfied shall pass necessary orders for deleting Sy.Nos.1,6 and 17 at item 8 from the impugned notification dated 3.6.1989." 8. On careful consideration of the observation made by this Court regarding the satisfaction of respondent no.2, with regard to the grant of occupancy rights in favour of the petitioner herein in Register No.1, produced by the petitioner herein, I - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 have carefully examined the order dated 31.08.2013 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent no.2, wherein no discussion has been made with regard to Register No.1 as indicated in W.P.No.479/2002 (Annexure-E). 9. In that view of the matter, though Annexure-G has been passed by respondent no.2 at a later stage, but pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2006 in W.P.No.479/2002 (Annexure- E), I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, no discussion has been made with regard to Register No.1 in the impugned order at Annexure-G. It is also noted that the said order at Annexure-G has been confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.258/2014 without considering the observation made by this Court in paragraph no.6 in W.P.No.479/2002. 10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following order : ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed; ii) The order dated 26.09.2017 in Appeal No.258/2014 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-A) and order dated 31.08.2013 in LND(2)/17/2006-07 passed by respondent - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26975 WP No. 11557 of 2020 no.2 (Annexure-G) and, all further proceedings therein, are hereby quashed; iii) Matter is remitted to respondent no.2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observation made by this Court at paragraph no.6 in W.P.No.479/2002 dated 29.05.2006 (Annexure-E), particularly with regard to ascertaining the extent of land granted in favour of the petitioner, by looking into Register No.1, so also the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14500/1996 and connected writ petition dated 04.03.1999 and the order dated 30.07.1999 in W.A.No.2693-94/1999, at the earliest, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv) Since the parties are represented by their respective counsels, the petitioner is directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 06.08.2025 at 03.00 p.m. and on their appearance, respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of the entire proceedings within an outer limit of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42