- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 17447 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) SRI M N PRABHAKARA S/O LATE M.V.NARAYANA, SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES SMT. SUMATHI W/O LATE M.N. PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUNCHIMOOLE HOUSE AIVERNAD VILLAGE, AIVERNAD POST SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN : 574 239 SMT. USHA K W/O SHUBHAKAR B AND ALSO D/O LATE M.N. PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.46-33/2A IST MAIN, IST CROSS, MALLATHAHALLI JNANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE-560 056. SMT. ASHAKUMARI M.P W/O RAVICHANDRA AND ALSO D/O LATE M.N. PRABHAKARA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.1345 SHREE NILAYA, 7TH BLOCK, SIR M.V. LAYOUT MUDDINAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 091. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 1(d) SRI SUBRAMANYA M.P S/O LATE M.N. PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUNCHIMOOLE HOUSE AIVERNAD VILLAGE, AIRVERNAD POST SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN: 574 239. 2. 2(a) SRI.M.N. SHIVARAMA S/O M.V.NARAYANA, SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SMT SHEELA W/O LATE SHIVARAMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDENT OF KUNCHIMOOLE HOUSE, AIVERNAD VILLAGE, AIVERNAD POST SULLIA TALUK, D.K. DIST, PIN-574 245 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, M.S.BUILDING REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALORE, PIN-575 007 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA PIN 574 334. 4. THE TAHSILDAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 SULLIA TALUK, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN-574 245 5. KESHAVA POOJARY S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY MAJOR, RESIDENT OF SONANGERI, JALSOOR VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, D.K DISTRICT. PIN-574 255 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-4, R5 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED-ABSENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR, SULLIA TALUK, SULLIA DATED 19.04.1997 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19.04.1997 passed by the Tahsildar, Sulia Taluk, Sulia as per Annexure-A, the order dated 04.06.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Puttur Sub- division, Puttur, as per Annexure-B and the order dated 10.04.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 Kannada District, Mangaluru as per Annexure-C and also the order dated 18.12.2015 in Appeal No.28/2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners, being the residents of Aivernad Village, Sullia Taluk, D.K. District, are in possession and cultivation of kumki land bearing Sy.No.216/1 (Sy. No.216/1A1) measuring 1 acre 61 cents (for brevity, "subject land"), adjacent to their owned kadim warg land in Sy.Nos.217/2A, 217/2B, 280/2 for several decades and they claimed kumki rights over the subject land based on the Madras Board Standing Orders. 3. Thing stood thus, the petitioners came to know that the subject land has been granted to respondent No.5 vide order dated 19.04.1997 by respondent No.4-Tahsildar without conducting an enquiry or issuing notice to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners challenged the grant made in favour of respondent No.5 before the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.3 and the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 04.06.2003. Against the said order, the petitioners approached the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.2, wherein interim order was granted earlier, however, later dismissed the appeal of the petitioners vide order dated 10.04.2006. Subsequent to that, the petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order before the Tribunal in R.P.No.28/2006. The Tribunal on assessment of the documents and submissions, rejected the revision petition vide order dated 18.12.2015. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court in this Writ Petition. 4. I have heard Sri N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.5 though served had remained unrepresented. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are in actual possession and cultivation of the subject land from decades. He contended that the subject land is adjacent to their kadim warga lands and they have kumki right over the subject land, because it has special privilege under Madras Board Standing Order for the kadim wargdars. Hence, he prays to allow the Writ Petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP, supporting the impugned orders submits that respondent No.5 was in unauthorized occupation of the subject land and filed the application to regularize the same and after enquiry, he had been granted occupancy right. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the records made available before this Court. 8. As could be gathered from records, respondent No.5 has filed an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation of subject land in Form No.50 before the Regularization Committee in NCR.SR.550/1991-92. The Tahsildar conducted a spot inspection of the subject land. The report reveals that respondent No.5 was in possession and cultivation of the subject land and cashew trees existed in the subject land. Accordingly, the Committee regularized the subject land in favour of respondent No.5. Further, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner depicts that the spot - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 inspection and sketch conducted by the Tahsildar clearly revealed that the subject land does not come within the ambit of kumki privilege of the petitioners' warga land. On a query, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Sy.No.216 totally measures more than 10 acres. On perusal of Annexure- E, the same depicts that adjacent to petitioners' land, Sy.Nos.216/1A1B is situated and thereafter the subject land i.e., Sy.216/1A1 is situated. In such circumstance, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly held that the subject land does not fall under kumki privilege. 9. The regularisation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation is provided for under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for brevity, "the KLR Act"), which reads as under: "Regularisation of certain cases of unauthorised occupation by constituting committee etc.—…………. (4) Nothing in section 94 shall prevent the committee constituted under sub-section (1), [or additional committee constituted under sub-section 2A, but subject to such rules as may be prescribed, if any, to grant to the person liable to be evicted under that section, the land which he had unauthorisedly occupied prior to the [first day of January, 2005] (hereinafter referred to as the said date) or any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 portion thereof, if he satisfies the prescribed conditions (including the extent of the land held and unauthorisedly occupied by him) and makes [within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2018] (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act), an application for such grant in such form along with such fees as may be prescribed and on payment of the amount payable under sub- section (5): Provided that the land so granted together with the land already held by such person, shall not exceed two hectares of ‘D’ class of land or its equivalent thereto." 10. Further under Rule 108F of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for brevity, "the KLR Rules"), describes the eligibility for grant which reads as under: 108-F. Eligibility for Grant- No person shall be eligible for grant of land under this Chapter, unless, - (i) he has attained the age of eighteen years, and [(ii)x x x x .] (iii) he is a permanent resident within the limits of the Taluk in which the land is situated or in the adjacent Taluk; and (iv) he is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally and is not prohibited from holding or acquiring land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50846 WP No. 17447 of 2016 (v) he is in authorised occupation of land for at least a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the Fourteenth day of April, 1990: Provided that in the case of persons belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, such period shall be not less than one year. (vi) Applicant is in unauthorised occupation of land applied, for at least a continuous period of not less than three years prior to the first day of January, 2005.]" 11. It is observed in the grant order that respondent No.5 has fulfilled the condition of Section 94A of the KLR Act and Rule 108-F of the KLR Rules. On the other hand, the petitioners have failed to prove their claim that the subject land falls within the kumki privilege. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal have rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners. Those orders do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the order passed by the Tahsildar/Committee in NCR.No.550/1991-92 dated 19.04.1997 is affirmed. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1