- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 47959 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. SHASHIKALA DAUGHTER OF LATE PARAMESHWARA UPADHAYA, WIFE OF H.S.VASANTH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT RAYASA MANE, NARIKOMBU VILLAGE AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK 574 201, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. ALSO AT NO.26/3, TRINETRA, 2ND CROSS, ISHWARA NAGARA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE-70 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, 575 001. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001 3. THE THASILDAR BANTWAL TALUK, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 MANGALORE-574 201, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. 4. DELPHIN PINTO W/O.LATE INTHRU PINTO, AGED:MAJOR, R/AT KATTAMAR HOUSE, KUPPE PADAVU, KELAMJARU VILLAGE, MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT-575 005. 5. SRIDEVI M W/O.M.SHIVARAM RAO, AGED:MAJOR, R/AT MADURU HOSUE, TUMBE VILLAGE, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. 6. PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOLTHAMAJALU VILLAGE, PANCHAYATH, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. 7. THE PRESIDENT BADRIYA JUMMA MASJID AND NURULA ISLAM MADRSA COMMITTEE, AMUTUR, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, AGA FOR R1-R3, SRI. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, NOTICE TO R5 HELD SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO R4 DISPENSED WITH R6 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-'A'. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.126/3 measuring to an extent of 17 cents and Sy.No.127/1B measuring to an extent of 33 cents of Amtur Village, Bantwala Taluk, totally measuring 50 cents along with other properties are agricultural properties and they are all ancestral properties of the petitioner. Adjacent to this patta land, the ancestral of the petitioner were enjoying Kumki privilege by cultivating the same in land bearing Sy.No.126/1 measuring to an extent of 50 cents of Amtur Village, Bantwala Taluk (for brevity, 'subject land'). 3. Things stood thus, the Tahsildar of the Bantwala Taluk vide order dated 22.03.2017 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to vacate the subject land, since the same is a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 Government land encroached by the petitioner. The said order of the Tahsildar has been challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-'H' and also sought for an interim order to stay the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Tahsildar as per annexure-'J'. Since the Assistant Commissioner has not considered the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim order, she approached the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-'K'. However, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and to take appropriate action. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred R.P.No.20/2017 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") and the same is pending for consideration. 4. In the meantime, respondent No.6 has passed a resolution dated 31.12.2015 by giving NOC for formation of muslim burial ground in 50 cents and Hindu Cremation Centre in 1 acre of Sy.No.126/1 of Amtur Village, Bantwala Taluk. The petitioner, having come to know about the said resolution, challenged the same by filing appeal before the Health Executive Officer, Bantwala Taluk Panchayath. Pending - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 consideration of the said dispute, respondent No.1 has passed the order as per Annexure-'A' by reserving the subject land for burial purpose under Section 79(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Rajashekar S., appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri Ananda, appearing for respondent No.7. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable both in law and on facts since the same is passed without extending sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her claim in respect of the subject land. He also contended that the initial order passed by the Tahsildar under Annexure-'G' is challenged by her and the same is pending for consideration before the Assistant Commissioner and also before the Tribunal. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before passing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate by supporting the impugned order submits that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order after obtaining necessary report from the concerned authority. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute, the initial order passed by the Tahsildar at Annexure- 'G' is under challenge before the Assistant Commissioner and also before the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the resolution passed by respondent No.6 as per Annexure-'N' is also challenged before the Health Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath, Bantwala. 9. In such circumstance, without extending sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and without conducting necessary enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner ought not have passed the impugned order hurriedly. Hence, in my considered view, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50496 WP No. 47959 of 2019 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'A' is hereby quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider, after extending opportunity to the petitioner to put forth her claim by permitting her to file objections and to place relevant documents. Till such decision is taken, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject land. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25