- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.22395 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. SONNADENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUSHEELA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SHIVARAJU M K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 3. THE TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure–A) passed in No. LND(De)CR.131A/2008-09 by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, whereby the grant of land made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. I have heard Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Shivaraju M.K., for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 petitioner and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-authorities. 3. Smt. S. Susheela, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the land in question was granted in favour of the petitioner during the year 1977–78, as per the grant order produced at Annexure–B. She further contended that the impugned order cancelling the said grant was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after a lapse of nearly four decades. She therefore sought interference by this Court. 4. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-Government has also granted two acres of land in Sy.No.104 of Kurubarahalli as per Official Memorandum dated 09.02.1993 and respondent No.2’s observation regarding the same in the impugned order does not justify cancelling the earlier grant. To support her arguments, learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Umesh vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga and others reported ILR 2009 (3) KLJ, 639 and in the case of the Deputy Commissioner, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 Davangere District and another vs. B.T. Mallikarjun and others reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4264 and as such it is contended that, since the original grant was made by respondent No.3, and respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to cancel it and accordingly, raised the legal question and propriety of respondent No.2's action in cancelling the grant. 5. Per contra, Sri. 5. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -State sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 and contended that, the petitioner has been granted another land in Sy.No. 104 of Kurubarahalli village to an extent of two acres, and as such, the petitioner is being benefited with two grants and therefore, cancelling the earlier grant made in favour of the petitioner is just and proper and as such sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the impugned order would indicate that, land bearing Sy.No.18 situated at Sonnadenahalli Hosakote Taluk to an extent of 21 guntas was granted in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 No. LND.SR.11/1977-78 dated 01.12.1977. Respondent No.2, without providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancelled the said grant suo moto after nearly four decades and therefore, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that once the land had been granted, the same could not be cancelled without following due process, including affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. It is also to be noted that this court in the case of Gangaiah and Others vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Tumakur and Others reported in (2002) 4 KLJ 385 has categorically held that no order of cancellation can be made without issuing a notice to the grantee and such notice being mandatory. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 requires to be set aside. 7. It is further noted that although the petitioner may have been granted an additional parcel of land in Sy.No.104 of Kurubarahalli Village by Official Memorandum dated 09.02.1993, this cannot be a ground for automatic cancellation of the earlier grant, unless the procedure prescribed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the relevant rules are being followed. Therefore, the submission of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 the learned High Court Government pleader cannot be accepted. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed.; ii) The order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure–A) passed respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in No. LND(De)CR.131A/2008-09 is hereby set aside iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for reconsideration. Respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. iv) It is made clear that until final orders are passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner concerning the subject land bearing Sy.No.18, measuring 21 guntas, situated at Sonnadevanahalli Village. v) The parties are at liberty to raise all contentions available to them under law during the proceedings before respondent No.2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26378 WP No. 22395 of 2017 vi) In order to avoid further delay, and considering that the parties are represented by counsel, the parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 11.08.2025 at 3:00 PM. vii) Upon appearance of the parties, respondent No.2 shall dispose of the matter within an outer limit of four months from the said date. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44