- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 43293 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. K H UDAYAKUMAR DEAD BY HIS LR'S 1(a) SMT NAGAMMA W/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 1(b) SMT VISHALAKSHI D/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 1(c) SMT. SHILPA M.U D/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 1(d) SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE UDAYAKUMAR K.H AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. K H RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE HIRIANAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO.1(a) TO 1(d) & RESPONDENT NO.2 ARE R/O MACHAHOLALU VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU, AND SMT. USHA LINGARAJU, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT-413 304 4. THE TAHASILDHAR K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426 5. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDHAR AKKIHEBBAL NADAKACHERI AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K.R. PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605 6. REVENUE INSPECTOR AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605 7. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI K.R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605 8. M S PRASANNA S/O SSHIVARAME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 9. SHIVAREMEGOWDA S/O DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 10. M D RAMESH S/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 11. SHIVARAM S/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 12. KRISHNA S/O RAGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 13. GOPALA S/O GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 14. PRASANNA S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 15. M C CHANDRASHEKAR S/O GOPALA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 16. M K HIRESH S/O KRISHNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 17. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 17 ARE RESIDENT OF MACHAHOLALU VILLAGE AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 MANDYA DISTRICT-571 605 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R7, SRI. UDAY K.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C.M. NAGABHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R8-R17) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 IN R.A.3/2015-16 DATED 25.06.2016 AND LETTER OF NOTICE DATED 16.07.2016 ISSUED BY R-5 AT ANNEX-A & B. 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 petitioners in this writ petition sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by respondent No.3 in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 and letter of notice bearing No.NA.KA.30/2016-17 dated 16.07.2016 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexures-A and B. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy.No.67 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Manchaholalu village, Akkihebbal Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 District was granted in favour of the petitioners' father one K.S. Hirianaiah by the Tahsildar vide order dated 15.10.1977. The said order has not been challenged by anybody. However, in the year 2001, one Puttaraju and other villagers have submitted the representation for cancellation of grant order dated 15.10.1977 before the Tahsildar, which was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 08.10.2001, issued an endorsement by forwarding the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner. Based on the said communication, the Deputy Commissioner issued an endorsement dated 13.02.2002 by rejecting the proposal for cancellation of grant. Against the said endorsement, the villagers approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the Tribunal") in Appeal No.239/2002, wherein the Tribunal on reassessment of entire documents and reports placed by the revenue authority including the order passed by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, rejected the appeal filed by the villagers and thereby confirmed the grant order made in favour of the petitioners' father in LND/LL/CR/200-77-78 dated 15.10.1997. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 3. In the meantime, the villagers interfered with the petitioners' possession in respect of the subject land, against which the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.62/2003 against the villagers for the relief of injunction and the said suit was decreed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet., (for brevity "the Trial Court") restraining the defendants i.e., the villagers interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petitioners suit schedule property vide judgment dated 19.03.2010. The said judgment has been challenged by the villagers in R.A.No.39/2010. The First Appellate Court, after reassessment of entire evidence on record placed before it, dismissed the appeal by confirming the order passed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 18.08.2012. In the meantime, the villagers i.e., the appellants before the Tribunal, once again approached the Assistant Commissioner against the grant made in favour of the petitioners in Dispute No.RD (K) 03/2015-16. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, upon re-appreciation, allowed the appeal and thereby cancelled the grant order made in favour of the petitioners in LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977 vide Annexure-A. Based on the said order, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 respondent No.5 issued Annexure-B. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel Sri K.R. Lingaraju for Smt. Usha Lingaraju for the petitioners and learned HCGP Sri Neelakantappa K. Pujar for respondent Nos.1 to 7 so also Sri Uday K.S. for Sri Nagabhushan for respondent Nos.8 to 17. 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondents- villagers since the grant order dated 15.10.1977 was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal. He also contended that the villagers have challenged the grant order before the Assistant Commissioner after a lapse of 25 years from the date of grant order and after a lapse of 13 years from the date of order passed by the Tribunal. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner entertained the appeal belatedly. He further contended that while granting the land, the Tahsildar has obtained the spot inspection report from the concerned Revenue Inspector. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner has no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to set-aside the order. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the land in question is a forest land i.e., a gundu thopu. Hence, the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to grant the said land in view of the provision under Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Further, the Assistant Commissioner is the appropriate authority to cancel the grant of gundu thopu/Government land. He also contended that the Tahsildar without properly considering the report filed by the Revenue Inspector, granted the Government land without any jurisdiction, which was wrongly confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by issuing endorsements. The said aspect has not even properly appreciated by the Tribunal. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Learned HCGP by supporting the impugned judgment passed by the Assistant Commissioner prays to dismiss the writ petition. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 9. As could be gathered from records, initially the land was granted in favour of petitioners' father by the Tahsildar dated 15.10.1977 by receiving the upset price of Rs.112 per acre by exercising the power under Rule 7(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Thereafter, the revenue entries were mutated in the name of the petitioners' father as per MR.No.1/78-79 as well as the RTC entries were also effected by assigning new number as Sy.No.67/B. Accordingly, the petitioners' father was in peaceful possession of the land in question. Subsequently, after the death of petitioners' father, the revenue entries were changed in the name of the petitioners. Though the said grant order is challenged by the villagers, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have not cancelled the grant order. Nevertheless, in the appeal before the Tribunal by the villagers, the Tribunal while rejecting the appeal confirmed the grant order in LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977. Nonetheless, the petitioners also obtained a decree of injunction against the respondents in O.S.No.62/2003 which was confirmed in R.A.No.39/2010. Subsequently, after lapse of 13 years from the order of the Tribunal, the villagers once again approached - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 the Assistant Commissioner by challenging the grant made in favour of the petitioners under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. No doubt under Section 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered to cancel the grant of Government lands. However, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner goes contrary to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal, wherein the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal confirmed the grant made in favour of the petitioners in LND/LL/RC/200/77-78 dated 15.10.1977. In such circumstance, the only remedy available to the respondents- villagers to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal before this Court is by filing the writ petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Writ of Certiorari is issued. The impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.03/2015-16 dated 25.06.2016 is hereby quashed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46044 WP No. 43293 of 2016 iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners. iv. The respondents are at liberty to challenge the Tribunal order in accordance with law. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37