- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 10429 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CECILIA D' SOUZA W/O. LATE. ALEX D' SOUZA, AGED 55 YEARS, 2. SHRI.B. EVARISE D' SOUZA, S/O. BELCHAR D' SOUZA, AGED 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BANNUR, BANNUR VILLAGE AND POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT. PIN-574 202 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT. PIN-575 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PUTTUR SUB DIVISION, PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT. PIN-574 201 3. THASILDAR, PUTTUR TALUK AND POST, DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALURU PIN-574201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2019 IN APPEAL NO.943/2013 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR AS REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND APPEAL NO.943/2013 BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub-division, Puttur, D.K. District as per Annexure-C and the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru as per Annexure-B and also the order dated 23.08.2019 in Appeal No.943/2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") insofar as remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners, being the residents of Bannur Village, Puttur Taluk, D.K. District, are in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.57/1A(P) measuring 2 acres 75 cents and Sy.No.130/P measuring 80 cents of the said village (for brevity, "subject lands"). They were in unauthorized occupation and cultivation of the same and they made applications in Form No.50 seeking regularization of their unauthorized occupation and cultivation of subject lands before the Regularization Committee in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 year 1990. However, those applications were not taken up for consideration by the Regularization Committee till the year 2006. In the year 2006 i.e., on 15.07.2006, the Regularization Committee recommended to affirm the grant of subject lands in favour of the petitioners as per Annexure-F. Accordingly, the petitioners paid the premium of Rs.2,661/-. Thereafter, the petitioners were put in possession of the subject lands and they were cultivating the same. 3. Subsequently, respondent No.3-the Tahsildar, Puttur Taluk has forwarded a proposal for cancellation of the grant made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that as per the Government Notification No.RD.37.LGP.2002(I) dated 23.04.2005 there was a direction not to grant the lands within the City Municipal areas and the subject lands fall within the City Municipality of Puttur Taluk. Pursuant to such proposal, respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioners in a suo-moto proceeding in LND.CR:509/06-07 and the Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 12.12.2008 by canceling the grant. Against the said order, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner remitted the matter back to the Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 Commissioner vide order dated 23.03.2009. However, on 30.08.2010 the Assistant Commissioner once again cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioners as per Annexure-C. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners once again approached the Deputy Commissioner, who affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B. Against the said order, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in appeal No.943/2013. 4. The Tribunal on assessment of the documents and submissions, partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners by setting aside the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-B and thereby remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the aspect, whether the subject lands fall within the limit of Puttur Municipality as on 15.07.2006. Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondents. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have filed their - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 applications for regularization of the subject lands in the year 1990. However, those applications were considered by the Regularization Committee only in the year 2006. While canceling the grant order made in favour of the petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by relying on the Rule 108-I(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, (hereinafter referred as "KLR Rules") wrongly observed that as on the date of grant made in favour of the petitioners, the subject lands was within Puttur Municipality, as such, the very grant made in favour of the petitioners is not sustainable under law. 7. According to the counsel, the gazette notification was published on 22.01.2015 by declaring that Bannur Village i.e., the village in which the subject lands were situated comes within the limits of Puttur City Municipality and the petitioners have filed their applications in year 1990 and the Regularization Committee considered the same after lapse of 16 years. As such, for the delay by the Committee in considering the applications, petitioners cannot be penalized. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 8. Further, as per the settled principle of law by this Hon'ble Court in catena of judgments, as on the date of applications for regularization, if the subject lands were not under City Municipality limit, then the Rule 108-I(2) of the KLR Rules is not applicable to the subject lands. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the order by canceling the grant for the reason that the subject lands were granted to the petitioners in the year 2006 i.e., after the Government Notification No.RD.37.LGP.2002(I) dated 23.04.2005. In such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly cancelled the grant under Rule 108- I(2) of the KLR Rules as amended on 23.04.2005. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the records made available before this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 11. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have filed the applications in Form No.50 for regularization of the subject lands in the year 1990. Later in the year 2006, the Regularization Committee considered their request and granted the subject lands in their favour. Accordingly, they were put in possession of the same. However, later in the year 2007, by virtue of provision under Rule 108-I(2) of KLR Rules, the Tahsildar submitted a report before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner by suo-moto proceedings cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioners. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that this Court in the case of MAHADEV AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 2017 (4) KCCR 1994, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph No.12 to 14 held as under:- "12. The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the application for the grant of the land has to be examined with reference to the law which was in force at the time of making the application or a per the law, which is amended subsequent to the filing of the application? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statue sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot take away or impair a right acquired under the existing laws or attach a new disability. 14. In the instant case admittedly the application for the grant of the land was made in 1991. In 1991, there was no prohibition in granting the land which lied within a radius of 5 kms. from the periphery of Shivamogga City. The prohibition or embargo is introduced subsequently. Such a question is examined by this Court in its decision in the case of Rama Naik Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in (2007 (2) KCCR 1346):ILR 2007 Kar 1521, Paragraph No.5 of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow: "5. I do see some force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If the land has been regularized in favour of the petitioner; prior to declaring - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 Gangavati Town as City Municipality and if an amendment has been brought into the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, subsequent to the order of regularization for issuance of saguvali chit, the Tahsildar is not expected to apply the subsequent development. What is required to be considered is whether the Committee had power to regularize it in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner." 12. Subsequently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court affirmed the said view in W.P.No.2411/2022 that "the application for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that the land comes within the geographical jurisdiction of City/BBMP and the same shall be considered as on the date of the applications made by the petitioners". By applying the above ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be made fault for the inordinate delay in considering - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 their applications by the Regularization Committee. The provisions under Rule 108-I(2) of KLR Rules came into effect on 25.04.2005. No doubt the grant made in favour of the petitioners is after the said Rule came into force. Nevertheless, the petitioners have filed their applications much prior to that in the year 1990. It is not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the applications, the locality of the subject lands were not within the limits of municipality. The same clarifies in the gazette notification dated 22.01.2015. As such, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to consider these aspects of the matter. The Tribunal also while remanding the matter by setting aside the grant made in favour of the petitioners, has observed that the Deputy Commissioner has to consider the applications of the petitioners as to whether the subject lands come within the limits of city municipality as on the date of grant. Hence, this order of the Tribunal is also liable to be set aside. 13. In view of the above, the authorities have failed to consider the law in a right perspective. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48806 WP No. 10429 of 2020 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub-division, Puttur, D.K. District as per Annexure-C and the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru as per Annexure-B and also the order dated 23.08.2019 in Appeal No.943/2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed. (iii) Consequently, the grant made in favour of the petitioners as per Annexure-F is restored. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34