- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100552 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI DASTAGIRSAB S/O RAJESAB MULLANNAVAR AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUKABASAV NAGAR, POST: BHAGYANAGAR (HIDKAL), TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HIREMATH R.M., AND SRI. SUJEET S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE TAHASILDAR Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302. 4. SHRI. BALAPPA S/O MAHADEV SATABANNAVAR AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANGYANKOPPA, TQ. KHANAPUR, PRESENTLY R/AT. SAMBRA, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591124. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. HARSH DESAI AND SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGWAD, ADVOCATES FOR R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12-06-2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.68624/2010 (KLR- RES), AND MAY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE AFOREMENTIONED WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The fourth respondent in the writ petition in W.P. No.68624/2010 has called in question the grant of land measuring 4 acres 38 guntas in Kerwad village, Khanapur Taluk [the subject property] in favour of the appellant vide the order dated 01.10.2004 while also calling in question the third respondent’s order dated 30.05.2002. The third respondent by this order dated 30.05.2002 has cancelled the grant of subject property in favour of the fourth respondent, which is way back in the year 1978. The grant of the subject property in favour of the fourth respondent is first cancelled in the year 1991, but such cancellation is successfully challenged in W.P. No.18910/1994. The writ Court has disposed of this writ petition with certain observations. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 2. The fourth respondent had not initially challenged the third respondent’s order dated 30.05.2002 but has later filed for amendment to challenge the said order. The writ Court has disposed of the writ petition and the application by the impugned order dated 12.06.2023. The writ Court, while setting aside the order of grant dated 01.10.2004 in favour of the appellant and the other orders passed by the authorities [including the order dated 30.05.2002], has directed the third respondent [the jurisdictional Tahsildar] to dispose of the rival claims considering the observations of the writ Court in the earlier petition in W.P. No.18910/1994. This writ petition is decided on 20.02.1998. 3. The fourth respondent has filed writ petition in W.P. No.18910/1994 calling in question the orders of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner affirming the cancellation of grant of the subject - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 property in his favour at the first instance. The writ Court has disposed of this petition restoring the matter for reconsideration essentially on the ground that the authorities had failed to note that no enquiry was held to decide on questions such as whether the fourth respondent had income and held land more than the prescribed limits. After this remand, the Tahsildar by the impugned order dated 30.05.2002 has affirmed the cancellation of the grant and has proceeded to grant the subject property to the appellant on 01.10.2004. 4. The fourth respondent, who has carried this order of grant dated 01.10.2004 in favour of the appellant in appeals through the proceedings contemplated under the relevant Act, has finally called in question the order of grant dated 01.10.2004 as also the dismissal of his appeal and further proceedings in W.P. No.68624/2010. The application for amendment to challenge the order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 dated 30.05.2002 specifically is filed in the year 2021. 5. Sri. Sujeet S. Hiremath, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that this Court must intervene with the writ Court’s order because the fourth respondent, in choosing to challenge the order dated 30.05.2002 after a lapse of 19 years has forfeited the right to call in question the grant in favour of the appellant and that the writ Court could not have interfered with the order dated 30.05.2002, or the subsequent order dated 01.10.2004, on the ground that the jurisdictional Tahsildar had not followed the procedure that was required to be followed in terms of the writ Court’s order in W.P. No.18910/1994. Sri. Santosh B. Malligwad, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, in rebuttal invites this Court’s attention to the Tahsildar’s order dated 30.05.2002. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 6. The short question for consideration is whether this Court must interfere with the writ Court’s order restoring the proceedings for reconsideration on the ground that a challenge to the order dated 30.05.2002 [the order affirming the cancellation of the grant in his favour] is permitted after 19 years. On the first blush it seems that the fourth respondent has not called in question the order dated 30.05.2002 until he applied for amendment, but this Court is not persuaded to accept the same as the fourth respondent has called in question the grant of the subject property on 01.10.2004 in favour of the appellant almost immediately after the disposal of the restored proceedings by the order dated 30.05.2002. The fourth respondent’s challenge of the grant of the subject property in favour of the appellant encompasses the challenge to the order dated 30.05.2002. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 7. Insofar as the other ground, it would suffice this Court to observe that the writ Court is justified in restoring the proceedings for reconsideration as the jurisdictional Tahsildar has proceeded to hold that the fourth respondent has an income much more than the limit contemplated under Rule 4[1] of the proviso of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 only because the fourth respondent was in service and because the details of his retiral benefits are not on record. This Court must observe that such inference could not have been drawn especially when this Court in W.P. No.18910/1994 had restored the proceedings for reconsideration to extend an opportunity to the fourth respondent to demonstrate his entitlement to the grant. 8. If there is no reason for interference on the grounds urged in this intra Court appeal, this Court must also observe that with the writ Court - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2574-DB WA No. 100552 of 2023 quashing all orders, including the orders in favour of the appellant and the fourth respondent for reconsideration, every question including whether the fourth respondent satisfied all conditions as of 1972 for the grant and if he so satisfied, whether the appellant must be granted alternative land as against the subject land must be reconsidered for effective adjudication. The appellant and the fourth respondent without further notice shall appear before the third respondent on 10.03.2025, and the proceedings shall be closed as expeditiously as possible before 31.10.2025. The Writ Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24