- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45450 WP No. 9511 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9511 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RADHAMMA @ THILOTHAMMA W/O LATE K. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRI. SHAMANTH ALSO SHAMANTH KUMAR S/O LATE K. ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3. SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE K. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 4. SRI. PUNITH S/O LATE K. ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 5. SMT. SANJEEVAMMA (SINCE DEAD) 5A) SRI. M. VENKATESHAPPA (DIED) HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE PETITIONER NO.5(B)(C) AND (D) 5B) SMT. MANJULA V D/O VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE. SANJEEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HEGGANAHALLI VILLAGE NANDI HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45450 WP No. 9511 of 2024 5C) SRI KUMAR V S/O VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE SANJEEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT 10TH WARD, BALAJIGARA STREET VIJAYAPURA (TMC), DEVANAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135. 5D) SMT. SOUBHAGYA D/O. VENKATESHAPPA AND LATE. SANJEEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT UTTANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BANGALORE NORTH-562 102. 6. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AND JAYAMMA, W/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4, AND 6 ARE R/AT KANNAMANGALA KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. SRIVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MURTHY K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45450 WP No. 9511 of 2024 2. THE LAND GRAND COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 5. THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING ANNEXURE-A, ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE LND NO. 9/2018 DATED 4.4.2022 AND ALSO ANNEXURE-B, THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2000 IN R.U.C.(A) 32,33/1999-2000 PASSED BY THE R4, CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE GRANT ORDER AT ANNEXURE-K IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS FAMILY BY DIRECTING R5 TO MAINTAIN REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45450 WP No. 9511 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are the legal representatives of Smt. Jayamma and Smt. Radhamma, have called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-B passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 07.08.2000 whereby the grant of 1 acre 10 guntas each to Smt. Jayamma and Smt. Radhamma came to be set aside. 2. The proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner was proceedings whereby the petitioners were aggrieved by non-consideration of their application for grant of an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and considering and passing an order regularising the cultivation with respect to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas each to Smt. Jayamma and Smt. Radhamma. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that when they are aggrieved by non-consideration of the entirety of their claim, the undisputed grant made in their favour of 1 acre - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45450 WP No. 9511 of 2024 10 guntas each could not have been cancelled without separate notice. 4. Perused Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. In light of the proviso to Rule 108-K, it is clear that cancellation of land grant cannot be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard. In the appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner, which was only as regards non- consideration of the entirety of petitioners' claim, question of cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners' family which was not the subject matter of appeal is impermissible. It was for the State to have initiated separate proceedings if permissible in law. 5. In the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, question of cancelling the earlier grant to an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas each to Smt. Jayamma and Smt. Radhamma, is impermissible. The said order has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45450 WP No. 9511 of 2024 6. Accordingly, orders at Annexures-A and B insofar as it relates to cancellation of grant made at an earlier point of time stands set aside. Liberty is reserved to the Government to take appropriate proceedings, if circumstances so arise. However, insofar as the grievance of the petitioners that the entirety of Form-50 was not considered, the said grievance is kept open to be raised in an appropriate proceedings, as is permissible in law. 7. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP