- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 4693 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: RAVEENDRA SHETTY S/O LATE RAMAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT AARMAKKI HOUSE SHIROOR VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL UDUPI TOWN UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576 103. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 4. TAHSILDAR BYNDOOR HOBLI, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103 BY ITS SECRETARY 5. SUDARSHAN SHETTY S/O MANJAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT AARMAKKI SHIROOR VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R4, SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20TH JANUARY, 2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY IN PROCEEDING AS PER ANNEXURE-M THEREBY REJECT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE R-5 HEREIN. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.01.2020 passed in CDIS:LND/SR/52/2019 by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 and cancelled the order passed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar in Order No.HST(94C)SR.989/17-18 dated 09.10.2017, so also the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he hails from an economically weaker background and he is an agriculturist cultivating 4 acres 31 cents of land in Yedthare Village, Byndoor Taluk, which was granted to him under the provisions of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for brevity "KLG Rules"). Since he had no place of his own to house his family, he encroached upon a Government land in Sy.No.375/B2 of Byndoor Village, Kundapuru Taluk, Udupi District (for brevity "subject land") and had initially built a hut with thatched roofing. Later, he rebuilt his house with concrete roofing. Eventually, he filed Form-3A under Rule 108(q) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for brevity "KLR Rules") on 22.08.2014 seeking regularization of his holding of subject land. 3. After an enquiry, respondent No.4 granted the subject land vide order of grant dated 20.09.2017. Thereafter, on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 09.10.2017 hakku pathra was also issued by the Department of Revenue. 4. Respondent No.5 - Sudarshan Shetty claiming to be a distant relative of the petitioner questioned the aforementioned 'order of grant' before the Assistant Commissioner by way of appeal under Sections 49 and 25 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity "KLR Act") contending that the subject land was part of 'Kumki land' to the 'Kadim warg land'. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the said appeal filed by Sudarshan Shetty vide order dated 16.09.2019. Against the said order, Sudarshan Shetty filed an appeal under Section 50 of the KLR Act before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be allowed by setting aside the grant order made by the Tahsildar and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri. Ajith A. Shetty., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty., learned counsel for respondent No.5. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has erred while canceling the order of grant for the reason that the petitioner has already been granted with an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.339 to an extent of 4 acres 31 cents and the petitioner's mother already owns a house in Site No.206/1A1B2 measuring to an extent of 45 cents. According to the learned counsel, the term 'family' is not defined under the KLR Act, as such, as per Rule 2(6) of KLG Rules and Section 2(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 'family' does not include 'mother' as a family member. Further, no enquiry has been conducted by the Authority in respect of occupation and income. 7. According to the learned counsel, as per the proviso (iii) to Section 94 (C) of KLR Act, it would only disentitle the individuals to grant site, if such individual owns a site within the urban or rural area in which the land for which application is made is situated. Admittedly, the petitioner does not own any piece of residential site or plot. As such, the Tahsildar has rightly granted the subject land to the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contended that the petitioner has owned many landed properties at Shirur Village by virtue of family partition and an extent of 4 acres 31 Guntas in Sy.No.339 had been granted in his favour by Committee for Regularization. Apart from that, his mother has owned 45 cents of land in Sy.No.206/1A1B2 in the said village. He also constructed a house in the said property. As such, he is not at all a landless person. However, by suppressing all these facts, he managed to regularize the subject land in his name by filing false affidavit before the Authority. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly cancelled the grant. He also contended that the grant made in favour of the petitioner is against the proviso (iii) of Section 94-C of KLR Act. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Learned HCGP supported the impugned order by filing the statement of objections and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. As could be gathered from records, the petitioner had been granted the subject land by the Tahsildar under Section 94-C of the KLR Act. The letter of title/hakku pathra depicts - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 that the same is granted subject to the conditions imposed thereon. On careful perusal of those conditions, condition No.3 states that "the applicant or any member of his family shall not own any building or site within the urban or rural areas in which the land for which application is made is situated." Perhaps this condition is acute to proviso (iii) to Section 94-C to KLR Act. In the agreement/undertaking executed by the petitioner while granting the subject land as per the said terms and also with an undertaking that, if the application has been filed by suppressing any material facts, the grant can be cancelled without any compensation. In this backdrop, while analyzing the factual aspects in respect of grant of subject land, it is seen that the petitioner has filed application as per Annexure-D stating that he is a landless person and also not having any house for his accommodation. Further, he has also filed a declaration that his total annual income is only Rs.11,000/-. Even as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 the petitioner has owned many landed properties at Shirur Village by virtue of family partition and an extent of 4 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.339 had been granted in his favour by the Committee for Regularization. Apart from that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 his mother has owned 45 cents of land in Sy.No.206/1A1B2 in the said village and he has constructed a house in the said property. These aspects of the matter are also forthcoming in the impugned order. 11. Nevertheless, according to the statement of objections filed by the learned HCGP, the Tahsildar conducted a detailed enquiry and verified the place of the house of the petitioner and it was found that the petitioner is an agriculturist, he is cultivating in Sy.No.339 measuring 4.31 acres and his mother is the owner of the land property at Shirur village. In such circumstance, it is clearly established that the petitioner obtained the land by way of grant by suppressing the material facts that he is a landless person. 12. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per proviso (iii) to Section 94-C of KLR Act prohibits the grant if the applicant or any member of his family owns any building or site within the urban or rural area and that the petitioner though owns an agricultural property of 4.31 acres, does not own any house or site in his name. Further, as per Section 2(6) of KLG Rules and Section 2(12) of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, the term 'family' does not include 'mother' as a member of the family. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the condition imposed in Form No.6 - agreement/undertaking executed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner shall not own any house or property in his name within the rural or urban area and further, any of his family member shall not own any house or property in their name. On perusal of records, it reveals that apart from the petitioner owning 4 acres 31 cents in Sy.No.339 of Yedathar village, his mother owns a house in Site No.206/1A1B2 measuring to an extent of 45 cents. In such circumstance, the petitioner violated the conditions imposed in Form No.6 - Agreement/undertaking by suppressing the above aspects. Though as per Section 2(12) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, 'mother' was not included as a member of the family, in the instant case, since the father of the petitioner is no more, the mother of the petitioner has to be considered as a member of the family, who is a single parent of the petitioner, as the traditional definition of 'family' has widened significantly to include various structures beyond the 'nuclear family' of a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47320 WP No. 4693 of 2020 mother, father and children. In that view of the matter, in my considered view, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order by canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6