- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 62314 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VENKATARAMANA S/O NARASIMHA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREMANE, SISTHAMUDI VILLAGE, POST: ANAGOD, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST. KARWAR. 2. SRI. DATTATREYA S/O NARASIMHA BHAT, AGE: ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREMANE, SISTHAMUDI VILLAGE, POST: ANAGOD, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST. KARWAR. 3. SRI. MADHAVA S/O NARASIMHA BHAT, AGE: ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREMANE, SISTHAMUDI VILLAGE, POST: ANAGOD, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST. KARWAR. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VEERESH BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. 2. TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, YELLAPUR, DIST. KARWAR. 3. THIMMANNA GANAPATI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. KAREMANE, SISTHAMUDI VILLAGE, POST: ANAGOD, TQ: YELLAPUR, DIST. KARWAR-581 359. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.22 11:20:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KAT DATED:15/02/2011 IN APPEAL NO.106/2007 (REVENUE) VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED:18/12/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.02.2011 in Appeal No.106/2007 marked at Annexure-J passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and also the Order dated 18.12.2006 marked at Annexure-H passed by respondent No.1. 2. In terms of the order marked in Annexure-H passed by respondent No.1, the grant of 4 acres of land is partially cancelled and respondent No.1 has held that the petitioners are only entitled to 2 acres 2 guntas and cancelled the grant in respect of 1 acre 36 guntas. This order passed by respondent No.1 is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that property bearing Survey No.16 of Shishtamudi Village, Yellapur Taluk, Karwar district, measuring 4 acres, was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 in cultivation of the petitioners’ father under permanent lease from the Government. Said lease was executed on 10.04.1972. Thereafter, the saguvali chit has been issued on 23.09.1994 in name of the petitioners as the petitioners’ father had died by then. 4. Form No.5 under Rule 28(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for short ‘Rules, 1969’) was duly executed in favour of the petitioners conferring right, title in respect of 4 acres of land with a condition that the property shall not be alienated for 15 years and the property shall be used for the purpose for which it is granted. 5. In addition, few other conditions are also incorporated and one of the conditions is that the petitioners shall not leave the land uncultivated for more than 2 years. 6. It appears that a complaint is lodged by contesting private respondents alleging that the petitioners have violated the terms of the grant by not cultivating the land for 2 years in succession and it is also alleged that petitioners have encroached neighboring forest land. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 7. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order based on the said complaint canceling the grant vide Order dated 20.09.2003. 8. The petitioners questioned the said order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1467/2003 and in terms of the order dated 24.06.2005 the appeal was allowed, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “The appeal is allowed. No costs. The order under Appeal is set-aside. The question of violation of condition of grant of land measuring 04 Acres in Survey No.16 of Shishtamudi village, Yellapur Taluk made in favour of the present Appellants, is to be decided afresh, as per law and also in the light of the above observations. As far as the alleged encroachment upon the said pathway is concerned, the Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner is directed to order for resurvey and fixing of the boundaries of the land in Survey No.16 measuring 04 Acres of Shishtamudi village granted to the present Appellants vide - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 Sagulvai chit in Form No.5 dated: 23.09.1994 and also to demarcate the said pathway which is lying to southern side of the land. Further if there is any encroachment upon the said pathway is found, it shall be vacated by due process of law and the Respondent No.1 Deputy Commissioner shall make it available for the use of the villagers, free from any encroachment, within 2 months from the date of communication of this order.” 9. After the remand, the matter was again heard by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and in terms of the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has held that petitioners are only entitled to 2 acres 2 guntas of land and grant in respect of 1 acre 36 guntas has to be cancelled. 10. Said order is again called in question before the Karnataka Appellate Court in Appeal No.106/2007 and in terms of the impugned order the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by respondent No.1. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners have not encroached neighboring forest land as alleged. The petitioners have been cultivating the land continuously and at no point of time the land was left - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 uncultivated. No condition relating to the permanent lease was violated by the petitioners. Thus, absolutely there was no reason for the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to hold that the petitioners are only entitled to 2 acres 2 guntas of land and to further hold that the land in respect of 1 acre 36 guntas is to be cancelled, is the submission. 12. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioners would also bring to the notice of the Court the survey report which is filed before the Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court directing survey of the land. 13. Referring to the said survey report, it is urged that only 2 guntas of encroachment is noticed in neighbouring Sy.No.2. It is urged that to that extent the report is erroneous and alternatively urged that if at all there is any encroachment same is unintentional and due to bonafide impression that said portion is also part of the land granted and it is also urged that the petitioners do not have any claim over the said 2 guntas of land. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 14. Learned counsel would also submit that the property is under cultivation and age of the trees would indicate that the property was in continuous cultivation ever since the permanent grant. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the grant order itself would provide for maintaining the pathway in the granted land and the respondent and the petitioners intended to close the said pathway, as such the contesting respondent had to file objection to the grant. 16. It is also submitted that the Civil Court has passed a decree and same is pending consideration before the Appellate Court and the Civil Court has held that there is a pathway in the subject land. 17. Learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition on the premise that the petition land has not been cultivated for more than 2 years which was one of the conditions imposed in the grant and the petitioners were not supposed to encroach upon any neighboring land and since they have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 encroached upon 2 acres 2 guntas in the neighboring land, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in holding that the petitioners are not entitled for 1 acre 36 guntas of land which is uncultivated. 18. It is also the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the Appellate Tribunal is also justified in holding that the petitioners are entitled to only 2 acres 2 guntas and not remaining 1 acre 36 guntas. 19. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 20. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Court, the property is surveyed. The survey sketch would indicate that the petitioners are in possession and cultivation of the land measuring 4 acres in Survey No.16 which is granted to the petitioners’ father. 21. It is noticed from the survey sketch that there is an encroachment of two guntas. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 22. The Court has perused the said survey sketch. It is noticed from the said survey sketch that the Commissioner has pointed out two guntas of encroachment in the total extent of 4 acres. When the extent of land granted is 4 acres and when the land is an agricultural land, without there being any fence or compound wall on the boundary, it is quite possible that even without an intention to encroach upon the land, the parties may inadvertently under a bonafide impression that the property is the part of the granted land, may come in possession. Such an act cannot be said to be in violation of the terms and conditions of the grant. 23. In any case, the statement is made at the Bar that the petitioners have no claim over two guntas of encroachment pointed out in the sketch. That being the position, the Court is of the view that the contention that the petitioners have encroached 2 acres 2 guntas of land as held by the Deputy Commissioner is wholly erroneous and so also the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 24. As far as the contention relating to cultivation is concerned, on what basis the Deputy Commissioner has held - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 that there is no cultivation to the extent of 1 acre 36 guntas is forthcoming. It is to be noticed that there is no proper revenue records maintained by the Revenue Department to indicate that the revenue officials visited the petition property every year to ascertain the crop grown or the cultivations made by the petitioners. Maybe on a given date when the revenue officials visited pursuant to the complaint said to have been filed by the contesting private respondents, in some portion of the land, crop might have been not there. That does not mean that the crop is not grown for 2 years, so as to attract violation of the terms and conditions. 25. In addition to that, it is to be noticed that the petitioners are required to maintain any pathway in the petition land if it was there at the time of grant. The grant order by itself does not indicate existence of any pathway. However, it is noticed that a suit is said to have been filed by the contesting private respondents claiming right of way in the petition land and said suit is decreed and appeal is said to be pending before this Court. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 26. Thus, in case the suit is decreed, the appeal is also dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court holding that there is pathway in the petition land, the petitioners are bound to honour the said decree. In case the Court holds that there is no such pathway, then there is no question of violation or closure of any such pathway in the petition land. 27. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned orders are to be quashed. 28. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 15.02.2011 passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.106/2007 (Revenue) at Annexure-J and the order dated 18.12.2006 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-H are quashed. (iii) It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties in respect of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15811 WP No. 62314 of 2011 pathway which is the subject matter of the appeal before this Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 8