- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.240 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SURAKSHA KANTHARAJ S/O. LATE KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT FLAT NO.104 'MYTHRI TOWER', 'B' 4TH CROSS VENKATADRI LAYOUT, J. P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 228. 4. THE TAHSILDAR NARASIMHARAJAPURA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 131. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, A.G.A.) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVENUE APPEAL NO.287/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) INSOFAR AS REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 HOLDING THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.11.2024 in Appeal No.287/2022 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matter to the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration, to determine the amount payable for grant of land as per Rule 12 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. 2. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar K, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Navya Shekhar, learned AGA for the respondents. 3. Sri Vijaya Kumar.K, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the land in question has been granted in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner-late G.T.Dharmegowda, as per the order dated 12.01.1961. The said grant was made by respondent no.1 at an upset price of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 Rs.40/- per acre, plus malki value, for the purpose of coffee cultivation. The grand-father of the petitioner has paid Rs.1,410.90. It is further argued by Sri Vijaya Kumar.K, that, saguvali chit was not issued in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner despite payment of price as demanded by the respondents herein. Thereafter, respondent no.2 has issued lease deed on 08.01.2014 for a period of 5 years and, vide proceedings dated 31.10.2014, respondent no.2 has called upon the petitioner for confirmation of the temporary grant and for payment of a additional sum of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.253/2015 questioning the order passed by respondent no.2, wherein the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by order dated 08.07.2016 (Annexure-G), allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to respondent no.2 herein to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the observation made by this Court in the case of Muniyellappa vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in ILR 1995 Kar 255. Again, respondent no.2, without considering the declaration of law made by this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 Court in Muniyellapa (supra), has passed an order and, same was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No.287/2022 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure-A), remanded the matter to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on two occasions, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has remanded the matter to respondent no.2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Muniyellappa (supra), however, the same has not been considered by the respondent-authorities and therefore, sought for interference by this Court to conclude the matter in entirety. 4. Nextly, it is contended by Sri Vijaya Kumar.K, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Rule 12 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for brevity) and, submitted that, insofar as the land granted in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner is concerned, as on the date of grant made in his favour, it is 200 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 times the land revenue payable on the same and accordingly, sought for quashing the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned AGA sought to justify the order of remand made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No.287/2022 and, in furtherance of the same, placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in W.A.No.5242/2004 and connected matters dated 26.10.2007 and, in W.P.No.7308/2022 dated 09.02.2024 and submitted that, as the petitioner is having a Coffee Plantation and therefore, the prevailing market value of the land in question has to be made good and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that, the land in question has been granted in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner as per the order of grant dated 12.01.1961 and subsequent lease has been made in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I have carefully examined the finding recorded by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Annexure-A as well as the orders passed by this Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 W.A.No.5242/2004 and connected matters (M.S.Sadananadagowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Another) and, W.P.No.7308/2022 dated 09.02.2024 (D.M.Vijay vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others), wherein this Court, by considering the nature of cultivation made by the petitioners therein, directed the respondent-authorities to collect the prevailing market value of the land in question concerned. Further, I have carefully examined Rule 12(1)(i) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, which reads as under : "12. Price payable for the land granted under those rules,- (1) In respect of lands under these rules for purpose of agriculture.- (i) the price payable for dry land and rainfed wet land shall be, not less than fifty times and not more than five hundred times the land revenue payable on such land; (ii) xxxx" The language employed in Clause (i) makes it clear that the price payable for the dry land and rainfed wet land shall be, not less than fifty times and not more than five hundred times the land revenue payable on such land. Since the land in question - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 has been granted in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner prior to the amendment dated 31.10.2001 to Rule 12(1) of the Rules and, also taking into consideration the declaration of law made by this Court in Muniyellappa (supra) (ILR 1995 Kar. 255), it is to be held that, respondent no.2 is directed to collect the price at 200 times of the land revenue prevailing as on the date the grant made in favour of the grand-father of the petitioner. 7. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the orders of this Court referred to supra, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, insofar as the order of remand made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is concerned, already on two occasions the matter was remanded to respondent no.2 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal however, Rule 12(1) of the Rules has not been considered in strict sense by respondent no.2. 8. In that view of the matter, I pass the following order : ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28012 WP No. 240 of 2025 ii) The order dated 20.11.2024, in Appeal No.287/2022 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-A) remanding the matter to respondent no.2 is, hereby quashed; iii) Respondent no.2 is directed to issue saguvali chit in favour of the petitioner (legal heir of the grand-father- G.T.Darmegowda, the original grantee) in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.120 measuring 12 acres 32 guntas, Sy.No.121 measuring 06 acres 26 guntas and Sy.No.122 measuring 05 acres 22 guntas, in all measuring 25 acres, situated at Badagabylu Village, Narasimharajapura Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, in accordance with Rule 12(1)(i) of the Rules (prior to amendment) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39