- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 7376 OF 2016 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: 1. SMT PRABHAVATHI SHETTY D/O MAHABALA SHETTY W/O NAGAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT CHARA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104 2. SRI SADANANDA SHETTY S/O NAGAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT CHARA VILLAGE KARAKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104 3. KUM SAHANA SHETTY D/O NAGAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT CHARA VILLAGE KARAKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JEEVAN K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 UDUPI- 576101 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPUR SUB -DIVISION KUNDAPURA TALUK KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 3. THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE BY ITS SECRETARY THE TAHSILDAR KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104 4. SRI NARAYANA NAIKA S/O RAMA NAIKA AGE: MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS R/AT CHARA VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R3, R4 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION, KUNDAPURA IN DTD. 1.2.2006 MARKED ANNX-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-'F', respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'G' and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") in RA.No.37/2014 at Annexure-'H'. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.105/1 of Chara Village comprised of vast extent of agricultural land, they, being the agriculturists, were cultivating various extents of land in said survey number and raised coconut, cashew plantation and mango trees in their respective holdings. Thereafter, they filed an application before the Land Grant Committee - respondent No.3 for regularization of their unauthorized occupation as per amended provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for brevity "the KLR Act"). 3. The Land Grant Committee conducted spot inspection on 30.10.2003 and thereafter regularized the land by grant and issued Saguvali Chit on 11.11.2003 in Sy.No.105/1P2 in favour of petitioner No.1 to an extent of 3 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 acres 61 cents. Further, respondent No.3 also granted the land and issued Saguvali Chit on 12.02.2004 in Sy.No.105/1P3 in favour of petitioner No.2 to an extent of 3 acres 55 cents and granted the land and issued Saguvali Chit on 12.02.2004 in Sy.No.105/1P2 in favour of petitioner No.3 to an extent of 3 acres 55 cents (for brevity "subject lands"). Ever since, the petitioners were in cultivation and enjoyment of the subject lands. By virtue of the grants, all the revenue entries were mutated in their names. 4. Things stood thus, due to inimical terms, respondent No.4 filed a false complaint against the petitioners before the Lokayukta. The said complaint has been forwarded by the Lokayukta to the Assistant Commissioner for an enquiry. Relying on the said communication, the Assistant Commissioner in a suo moto proceedings cancelled the grants vide order dated 01.02.2006. The said order was questioned by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner has also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners by affirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Finally, the petitioners approached the Tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 by filing an appeal. The Tribunal also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners and affirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Jeevan K., for Sri Ranganatha S. Jois appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri Neelakantappa K. Pujar appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner has cancelled the grants by a cryptic order without assigning any valid reasons and also not extended sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their claim by placing relevant documents. He also contended that the reasons assigned by the Assistant Commissioner is that all the petitioners belong to same family and as such, as per the provisions under Rule 108F of the Karnataka Land Rules (for brevity "the KLR Rules"), the petitioners being the family members are not entitled for grant. The Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal also affirmed the said order on the ground that the petitioners are the family - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 members and they had already possessed excess land, as such they are not entitled for the grant and also they are cultivating the subject lands for the relevant period i.e., for a period of 3 years prior to 1990. 7. According to the learned counsel, the reasoning of the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal is not sustainable in law in view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9488/2014 (KLR- LG) dated 21.01.2022, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has clearly held that "there is no restriction that the lands should not be granted to more than one member of the same family. Under Section 94-A of the Act, any person who is in unauthorized cultivation of the Government land, on fulfillment of certain eligibility conditions under Rule 108F of the Rules, may seek grant of such lands and is eligible for grant". 8. He further contended that the observations of the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not cultivating the land as of 3 years prior to 1990 is also not sustainable under law since the Assistant commissioner has not extended sufficient opportunity to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 explain/put forth their claim before him by placing relevant documents. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP by supporting the impugned orders contended that petitioner No.1-mother and petitioner Nos.2 and 3-children of petitioner No.1, being the family members, are not entitled for grant of Government land as provided under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity "the KLR Act") and 108F of the KLR Rules. He also contended that as the petitioners are already holding excess lands, they are not entitled for grant of lands as provided under Section 94-A of the KLR Act. As such, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly cancelled the grants made in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents made available before me including the impugned orders. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 11. As could be gathered from records, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were granted occupancy rights in respect of the subject lands in the year 2003 vide three separate grant orders as per Annexures-A to C. Thereafter, they were cultivating the subject lands and RTC entries were also effected in their names. The Assistant Commissioner initiated suo moto proceedings based on the direction/communication made by the Lokayukta in view of the complaint of inimical person i.e., respondent No.4. 12. On careful perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the reason assigned by the Assistant Commissioner is that the petitioners being the family members are not entitled for grant as provided under Section 94-A of the KLR Act and 108F of the KLR Rules. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra has categorically held that there is no such restriction that the land should not be granted to more than one member of the same family unless the grant was not made in accordance with law as per Section 94-A of the KLR Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 13. The contention of the learned HCGP that the petitioners are already possessing excess land is concerned, by perusal of the impugned order, the same depicts that the Assistant Commissioner has not provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case by placing relevant documents that they were not owning excess land. These aspects of the matter are not properly dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal. Such being the position, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure- 'F', respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'G' and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in RA.No.37/2014 at Annexure-'H' are quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura Sub-Division, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49722 WP No. 7376 of 2016 Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District for fresh consideration by extending sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case by placing relevant documents at the earliest. iv. It is made clear that, till such time, the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the subject lands. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16