- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6039 WP No. 110980 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 110980 OF 2014 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SHANTALING SHIVASHARANAPPA PATIL AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. S.S. PATIL INDAIN STRUCTURAL CORPORATION R/O: SHRIDHAN VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. V. M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BELGAUM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELGAUM. 3. TAHASHILDAR HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AND TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VOID ORDER BEARING NO.PÀæ.PÀA±Á/J¯ïJ£ï PÀæ.PÀA±Á/J¯ïJ£ï PÀæ.PÀA±Á/J¯ïJ£ï PÀæ.PÀA±Á/J¯ïJ£ï r/¹Dgï r/¹Dgï r/¹Dgï r/¹Dgï----DATED 30.10.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6039 WP No. 110980 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 30.10.2014, passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-L. 2. Heard Sri. Ravi B Naik, learned senior advocate for the learned counsel Sri.V.M.Sheelavant for the petitioner and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the materials on record. 3. The grievance raised by learned senior advocate for the petitioner is that the impugned order Annexure-L passed by the Deputy Commissioner is under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short the Act 1964), which is not at all applicable to the present facts of the case. The Deputy Commissioner could not have invoked Section 136(3) of the Act 1964 for passing the order. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6039 WP No. 110980 of 2014 4. Secondly, it his contention that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner before passing Annexure-L and therefore, the same is bad under law. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that even though Section 136(3) of the Act 1964 was mentioned by the Deputy Commissioner, solely on that ground, order at Annexure-L will not become illegal or void. 6. He refers to Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 (for short the ‘Rules 1969’), which provides for cancellation of the grant. There is no illegality or perversity in the order. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. On perusal of the materials on record, admittedly the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner by the Government subject to certain conditions, one such condition is that the usage of land must be that for non- agricultural proposes. A complaint was received by the Assistant Commissioner that the land was used for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6039 WP No. 110980 of 2014 agricultural purpose by growing sugar cane. The Assistant Commissioner visited the spot for the purpose of holding spot inspection and submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner. On consideration of the report by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner issued the notice to petitioner as per Annexure-J on 16.09.2014 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the grant shall not be cancelled. The said notice was served on the petitioner. Annexure-K, dated 22.09.2014 is the reply by the petitioner, acknowledging the receipt of the notice. He has stated that he has not violated any of the conditions. He sought for a month’s time to submit his statement along with the documents. The impugned order Annexure-L came to be passed on 13.10.2014 i.e. beyond one month after issuance of the reply as per Annexure-K. Admittedly, petitioner has not approached the Deputy Commissioner with his explanation or any document. 8. Rule 25 of the Rules 1969 refers to cancellation of the grant. It authorizes cancellation of land granted and resumption of land. The proviso to Rule 25(1) of the Rules - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6039 WP No. 110980 of 2014 1969 makes it mandatory for giving opportunity of being heard to the grantee. Annexure-J is the notice dated 16.09.2014, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, calling upon the petitioner to show cause and thus, an opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. Receipt of such notice was acknowledged by issuing the reply as per Annexure-K. When admittedly petitioner has not taken any defence on his behalf, it cannot be said that he was denied of the opportunity of being heard. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the contention raised by learned senior advocate. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB/CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9