- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35962 WP No. 26555 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 26555 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: LATE H S ALLISAB S/O LATE SATTARAB BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SMT. ANJUMNAR D/O LATE H S ALLISAB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT OLD TECH COLLEGE, BACKSIDE KANAKAMUTTA, KABARIPETE, HOSADURA TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA-577 501. 3. THE ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA-577 501. 4. TAHSILDAR HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35962 WP No. 26555 of 2025 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RP.NO.60/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN SO FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, IN APPEAL NO.370/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the instance of the Tahsildar, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, the Assistant Commissioner took up proceedings under Section 136(2) read with Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to set aside the revenue entry made in the RTC in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession and she has not cultivated the lands in question. It is found from the report submitted by the Tahsildar that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35962 WP No. 26555 of 2025 petitioner claims that there was a grant made in favour of petitioner’s father viz., Sri.H.S. Allisab S/o Sattar Sab in respect of 2 acres of land in New Sy.No.174 (Old Sy.No.86/26), situated at Goravinakallu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk in terms of Order bearing No.ULND/22/1980-81 and from then on the revenue entries have been mutated in the name of Sri. H.S. Allisab. However, information is placed before the Assistant Commissioner that the lands have not been cultivated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the one hand, it is stated that there is a grant in favour of petitioner’s father viz., Sri. Allisab and on the other hand, it is stated that no records are available in respect of the grant. At any rate, it was not permissible for the Assistant Commissioner to take up the matter at the instance of the Tahsildar invoking Section 136 or Section 49. If it is the contention of the petitioners that there is violation of the terms of the grant inasmuch as the lands have not been cultivated. Prior notice, at any rate had to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35962 WP No. 26555 of 2025 be issued to the grantee or his legal heirs to afford an opportunity to say why the grant should not be cancelled for violation of the terms of the grant. At any rate, such proceedings initiated under Section 136(2) of the Act, that too at the instance of the Tahsildar, cannot be maintained. The Deputy Commissioner has failed to notice these aspects of the matter and the Deputy Commissioner has also affirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. There is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If it is the contention of the Tahsildar that no such grant was made in favour of Sri.H.S. Allisab, then the question would arise as to how and why the revenue entries were maintained in the name of the grantee for more than four decades. This Court has held in the case of Smt.Pyari Ma and others versus The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.22426/2021 dated 12.01.2022, that powers exercisable for cancellation of grant are not restricted by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35962 WP No. 26555 of 2025 any period of limitation, nevertheless, such exercise shall be done within a reasonable time. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders dated 19.12.2023 and 29.10.2021 at Annexures-G and F, respectively. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/State to initiate proceedings only in accordance with law, if it is found that no grant was made in favour of Sri.H.S. Allisab. Ordered accordingly. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8