- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 13484 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. TULASIDAS PATEL S/O HIRJI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 290, OPPOSITE TO APMC, SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHAR, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 601. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT HARIHARA ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE - 577 002 Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 4. THE THASILDAR HARIHARA TALUK HARIHARA - 577 601. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, HARIHARA - 577 501. 6. THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR HARIHARA TALUK HARIHARA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2010 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND DIRECT THE R-3 & 4 TO RESTORE THE REVENUE ENTRY IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER IN REPSECT OF THE LAND IN SY NO.38/1C2P MEASURING 9 GUNTAS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-N and also to issue writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to restore revenue entries in the name of father of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.38/1C2P measuring 9 guntas of Majenahalli, Harihara Taluk. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his father one Hirji Patel was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.38/1C2 situated at Majenahalli, Harihara Taluk. The land measuring 9 guntas in Sy.No.38/1C2P is adjacent to the aforesaid land (for brevity, "Subject land"). The subject land was in possession of Public Works Department and was being used as a gavial pit. The father of the petitioner applied for grant of the subject land, since the subject land was situated adjacent to his land. Accordingly, respondent No.4 granted the subject land in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 favour of petitioner's father by collecting the market value vide order dated 22.10.1984. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a Grant Certificate in Form No.I on 22.10.1984 and the revenue entries were mutated in his name in MR No.40/1984-85, ever since then he was in possession of the subject land. 3. Things stood thus, on 26.07.2001, on the basis of the complaint lodged by general public of Harihara Taluk, respondent No.4 issued notice to the petitioner's father to place the Grant Certificate for verification. Accordingly, petitioner's father placed the Grant Certificate and other documents before respondent No.4 for verification and thereafter, respondent No.4 issued an endorsement dated 18.10.2001 by closing the aforesaid complaint. 4. Subsequently, on 30.11.2007, the Deputy Commissioner issued a direction to the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere to conduct an enquiry by initiating suo moto proceedings and to take necessary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 action for cancellation of grant and eviction of petitioner's father from the subject land. By virtue of the said direction, the Assistant Commissioner initiated suo moto proceedings under Section 136(2) the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity "the KLR Act") and passed impugned order dated 25.08.2010 by canceling the Grant Certificate made in favour of the petitioner's father in respect of the subject land and also directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of the Government in the RTC. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in this Writ Petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Venugopal M.S., for petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that either the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner have no such power to initiate suo-moto proceedings under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, without there being any complaint by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 aggrieved person as contemplated in the said provision and the Assistant Commissioner can pass order under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, only against the order passed under Section 129 of the KLR Act. 7. He also contended that the impugned order has been passed against the dead person i.e., the father of the petitioner who died on 12.06.2007 i.e., prior to the date of direction of the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner to initiate suo moto proceedings. He also contended that the petitioner being the legal representative of the original grantee has not been given any opportunity to put forth his claim by placing relevant documents before the Assistant Commissioner. With these grounds, he prays to quash the order. 8. Per contra, the learned AGA supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 respective parties so also perused the records made available before this Court. 10. As could be gathered from records, it could be seen that the original Grant was made in favour of the father of the petitioner on 22.10.1984 as per Annexure-B. Subsequently, mutation was also effected in the name of father of the petitioner in MR No.40/1984-85. Nevertheless, in the year 2001 based on the complaint of the general public of Harihara Taluk, the Tahsildar has conducted an enquiry in respect of the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the subject land is legally granted in favour of petitioner's father. 11. Later, in the year 2007 the Deputy Commissioner once again directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct an enquiry in respect of the genuineness of the grant order and the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 12. In the case on hand, though it is stated that the complaint has been raised by the general public of Harihara Taluk, they are not the aggrieved parties. Further, the order has been passed against the father of the petitioner one Hirji Patel who died in the year 2007 itself i.e., on 12.06.2007. The order depicts that the notice has been served to respondent No.1. Hence, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed against the dead person without extending any opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his claim before the Assistant Commissioner and without conducting a proper enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the KLR Act. Such being the position, I am of the considered view that, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner does not hold good. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48945 WP No. 13484 of 2017 ii. The impugned order dated 25.08.2010 passed by Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-N is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration to conduct an enquiry by notifying the petitioner and extending an opportunity to him to put forth his claim by placing relevant documents. iv. It is made clear that till disposal of the proceedings, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject land and the name of the Government shall not be entered in the revenue records. v. Till such time, status-quo shall be maintained in respect of the subject land with regard to possession and revenue entries. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25