- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 58157 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR. ABDUL RAZAK S/O AHAMAD BEARY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT IRVATTHURU PADAVU HOUSE, IRVATTHURU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UN-AUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF THE GOVT. LANDS, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHSILDAR - 574 219. 4. SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 D.K.Z.P. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MOODUPADUKODY, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN APPEAL NO.1156/2012 (REVENUE) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 30.11.2018 in (Revenue) Appeal No.1156/2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'KAT') as per Annexure-A and also to quash the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 72 cents in Sy.No.31/1C1 of Moodupadukodi - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada (for brevity "Subject land"). Accordingly, he filed an application before respondent No.3-the Regularization Committee for Regularization of his unauthorised occupation in the year 1991. The Committee after considering the claim of the petitioner and also conducting an enquiry passed an order dated 29.08.1994 by granting 72 cents in Sy.No.31/1C1. In pursuance of the said grant, the petitioner remitted the premium and Saguvali chit was issued on 18.10.1984. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner mutated in all the revenue records and he has been continued in possession and enjoyment of the land. 3. Things stood thus, respondent No.4 has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner- respondent No.2 challenging the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner on assessment of the documents placed by both the parties, cancelled the grant and ordered the Government to take possession of the subject land and to enter the name of the Government in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 revenue records. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in (Revenue) Appeal No.1156/2012. However, the KAT has dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned AGA and the learned counsel for respondent No.4. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner without appreciating the documents placed and the contentions raised by the petitioner in a right perspective, passed the impugned order. According to him, the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner is possessing excess land as per the provisions of Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the KLR Act') is incorrect and the petitioner is a divided member of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 the larger family, independently cultivating the subject land. As such, the Deputy Commissioner erred in passing the impugned order by cancelling the grant. He also contended that the Deputy Commissioner has not properly conducted an enquiry in respect of the cultivation made by the petitioner in the subject land. Further, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the aspect that after passing the impugned order there was a partition in the family of the petitioner and as per the said partition, the petitioner is possessing the subject land well within the ceiling limit. The KAT has also affirmed the said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner without appreciating the documents and the contentions of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT are not sustainable both under law and on facts. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 submits that the school is in the possession of the portion of the subject land from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 decades and the school is using the said land as a playground. Under such circumstances, the school is entitled for extent of land which is in the possession of the school. 7. The learned AGA submits that the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT have rightly passed the order by considering the aspect that the petitioner is possessing excess land within the ceiling limit as contemplated under the provisions of 77-A of the KLR Act,. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents made available before this Court, it could be gathered from records that, initially the RegularizationCommittee has granted the subject land in favour of the petitioner, after conducting a spot inspection. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is in possession of the subject land ever since from 1986 as per the order passed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 Regularization Committee i.e., Annexure-C. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner also depicts that petitioner has cultivated the land and raised some cashew and coconut trees. Further, after the grant order, there was a partition in the family of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, these aspects were not rightly appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner by examining the Partition Deed and other documents in respect of the possession and cultivation by the petitioner in the subject land. 9. Further, according to the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4, portion of the land is utilized by the school for playground. In such circumstances, these aspects of the matter requires re- consideration at the hands of the Regularization Committee by testing the genuineness of the Grant, by extending an opportunity to both the parties to put forth claim by placing relevant documents. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52717 WP No. 58157 of 2018 ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Writ of certiorari is issued. The order dated 29.08.1994 passed by the Regularization Committee at Annexure-C, order dated 21.08.2012 passed in No.C.DS.RAP.108/08-09 by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B and Order dated 30.11.2018 passed in (Revenue) Appeal No.1156/2012 by the KAT as per Annexure-A are quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3-Regularization Committee, Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District. iv. The Regularization committee shall consider the claim of the petitioner and respondent No.4 afresh by extending an opportunity to both the parties. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5