- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100162 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NILAMMA W/O. KAMALAPPA JALIHAL HOLAGERA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HOOLAGERI, WARD NO.1, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KUSHTAGI, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227. 5. SHRI. MANJUNATH Y. BADDI PARISARAVADI AND RTI KARYAKARTARU, LINGARAJ NAGAR (NORTH), UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI-580031. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONENT NO.3/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL BEARING NO.KAM/ENAM/09/2025-26 DATED 11.12.2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.19 14:52:55 +0530 MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.19 14:53:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.KAM/ENAM/09/2025-26 (Annexure-A), whereby the Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of the representation submitted by respondent No.5, has held that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the grant order in respect of land bearing Survey Nos.126/*/2, 126/*/3 and 126/*/4 situated at Hanumasagar Hobli, Hoolageri Village, Kushtagi Taluk, Koppal District (‘subject lands’ for short). 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The subject lands originally stood as inam lands and were re-granted by order dated 24.06.2002, followed by mutation entries being effected in the revenue records. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 2.2. After the re-grant, permission to alienate the lands was granted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar on 02.08.2006. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner purchased the lands under a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2008, and her name was duly mutated in the revenue records. 2.3. Subsequently, during the year 2020–2021, the petitioner obtained conversion orders for non- agricultural purposes from the competent authority. 2.4. It is further stated that the re-grant order dated 24.06.2002 was challenged by the original grantee in appeal and revision, which came to be dismissed in the year 2022, thereby confirming the validity of the re-grant order. 2.5. It is stated that, thereafter, on the basis of a representation submitted by respondent No.5, the Assistant Commissioner initiated suo motu proceedings and passed the impugned order - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 dated 11.12.2025 holding that there was violation of the conditions of grant, which is now assailed before this Court in the present petition. 3. Contention of the petitioner: 3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to Rules 7, 9 and 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Grant Rules”, for short), submits that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under the Grant Rules. 3.2. It is contended that the proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of a third-party representation, without any complaint from the original grantee or re-grantee, and without following the mandatory statutory provision. 3.3. It is further submitted that, once the land is validly re-granted and the period of non- alienation has expired, the Grant Rules cease to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 apply and the land assumes the character of absolute ownership. 3.4. In support of the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy v. State of Karnataka and Others1 (Pedda Reddy), and H. M. Hanumantharaju and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another2 (H.M. Hanumantharaju). 4. Despite service of notice, respondent No.5 has chosen to remain absent. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 seeks to justify the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, contending that the said order is only a direction to 1 1993 (1) KLJ 328 2 2000 (8) Kar.L.J.58 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 the Tahsildar to take appropriate action and does not, by itself, cancel the petitioner’s title. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 7. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer to Rules 7, 9 and 25 of the Grant Rules, which reads as under: 7. Extent of land to be granted.- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.- (i) the Deputy Commissioner shall be competent to grant land for agricultural purposes other than cultivation of plantation crops not exceeding [two hectares of dry land and one hectare of wet land] or garden land including present holdings; (ii) the Deputy Commissioner of a district shall be competent to grant land for the purpose of cultivation of plantation crops not exceeding two hectares including present holdings; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 (iii) the Deputy Commissioner may subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, grant land for non-agricultural purposes other than building sites not exceeding half hectare subject to the collection of market value and conversion fee to be determined by him. (2) Any case for grant of land in excess of the extent specified in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), the proposals shall be submitted to Government for sanction: Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the extent of land that may be granted for agricultural purposes other than cultivation of plantation crops to any individual under this rule shall not exceed two hectares of dry land or one hectare of wet land or garden land as the case may be: Provided further that, the extent of land that may be granted for the purposes of cultivation of plantation crops to any individual under this rule shall not exceed four hectares.] - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 9. Conditions of grant.-(1) The grant of lands under these rules 1[for agricultural purposes shall be jointly in the name of husband and wife and shall be subject to the following conditions namely.- (i) the grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of twenty-five years from the date of taking possession: Provided that he may, after a period of five years, with the previous permission of, and subject to the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 2 of 1979), and] such conditions as may be specified by the Deputy Commissioner, alienate the whole or any portion of such land. But however, the Deputy Commissioner shall not grant such permission unless he is satisfied that the alienation is for the purpose of acquiring other land or for improving the remaining land and the grantee credits to Government an amount equal to fifty per cent of the market value of such land as on the date of sanction of such alienation as determined by the Deputy Commissioner: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 Provided that no person who has obtained permission to alienate land under the rule shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 4 be eligible for grant of any Government Land. (ii) the land granted shall be brought under cultivation within three years from the date of taking possession: Provided that the Deputy Commissioner, may, if he is satisfied that the grantee could not do so for bona fide reasons extend the aforesaid period upto 5 years; (iii) the grantee shall cultivate the land personally; (iii-a) where the land is granted for coffee cultivation the Section 14 of the Coffee Act, 1942 (Central Act 7 of grantee shall apply within the period specified in 1945) to the Registering Officer appointed under the said section to be registered as an owner of such land;] (iv) the land shall not be appropriated for any purpose other than that for which it was granted, except with the prior approval of the Granting Authority who may grant such permission subject to such conditions as he may consider proper and subject to payment of additional upset price as he - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 may consider fit provided the conversion is for a non-agricultural purpose and the price is within the maximum specified in Rule 12; (iv-a) the grantee shall within a period of one year from the date of his taking possession of the granted land plant and maintain not less than one tree per every 10 (ten) acres of land or ten trees per hectare of land, at his cost. In case the tree/trees planted were to die or get damaged due to causes beyond his control, he shall replant in its place another tree/trees and rear them;] (v) for contravention of any of the above conditions the grant shall be liable to be cancelled and resumed to Government free from all encumbrances by the authority granting the land: Provided that before canceling the grant, the grantee is afforded with an opportunity of being heard. Provided further that where the grant has been cancelled for non-payment of upset price, the Deputy Commissioner may restore the grant - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 on payment of upset price with a penalty of 10 per cent of the upset price, within a period of 2 years after the grant if the land in question has not been disposed of otherwise. (2) The following shall not be regarded as alienation for purposes of sub-rule (1).- (a) mortgage of the land in favour of State Government or a Co-operative Society or the Indian Coffee Board or a Scheduled Bank 1[or the Agricultural Refinancing Corporation or the Karnataka State Agro Industries Corporation] for loans obtained for improvement of such land or for buying cattle or agricultural implements for the cultivation of such land [or for raising educational loan to prosecute further studies of the children of the grantee after Pre-University Examination or twelfth Standard examination conducted by CBSC or ICSE or any Diploma Courses]; and (b) leasing of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 3[(3) The grant of lands other than building sites under these rules, for non- agricultural purposes shall be subject to the following conditions, namely.- (i) the land shall be utilised for the purpose for which it was granted within two years from the date of taking possession: Provided that the authority granting the land may, if satisfied, that the grantee could not for bona fide reasons utilise the land within the said period, by order, in writing, extend the time for a further period not exceeding two years; (ii) the land shall not be appropriated for any purpose other than that for which it was granted except with the prior approval of the Granting Authority who may grant such permission subject to such conditions as he may consider proper and fit; (iii) for contravention of any of the above conditions, the grant shall be liable to be cancelled and resumed by the Granting Authority, free from all encumbrances and without payment of any compensation. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 25. Cancellation of grant.- (1) Any grant of land made under these rules shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to these rules: Provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard. (2) Where any violation of the condition of grant or lease of land comes or is brought to the notice of a Revenue Officer, such officer shall forthwith report the violation to the officer competent to cancel the grant or lease as the case may be. The competent officer shall after giving the grantee or lessee an opportunity to be heard cancel the grant and resume the land to the Government free from all encumbrances. 8. Rule 7 of the Grant Rules prescribes the conditions subject to which a grant is made, including the condition of non-alienation period. In the present case, the material on record establishes the land was re-granted by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that the re-grant order was challenged by - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 the original grantee and the same was confirmed in appeal and revision and thereby attaining finality. Once the re-grant order attained finality, the same could not have been reopened by invoking Rule 7 of the Grant Rules. 9. Rule 9 of the Grant Rules mandates a specific procedure before taking action for alleged breach of grant conditions, including issuance of proper notice, conducting an enquiry, and consideration of the explanation of the affected party. In the present case, the proceedings have been initiated solely on the basis of a third-party representation, without adhering to the mandatory procedure contemplated under Rule 9 of the Grant Rules. 10. Rule 25 of the Grant Rules confers only a limited supervisory or revisional power. As per Rule 25, if a violation of the conditions of grant or lease of land comes to the notice of a Revenue Officer, such officer shall report the violation to the officer competent to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 cancel the grant or lease, as the case may be. In the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner has not merely reported the alleged violation but has directly proceeded to pass an order holding violation of the grant conditions, which is beyond his jurisdiction. 11. The Division Bench of this Court in Pedda Reddy’s case (supra), at paragraph 6 has held as under: “6. The legal position is that the Assistant Commissioner cannot declare the sale of the land granted under the provisions of the Rules as void unless he records the following findings: i) that the grant was made in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe; ii) that the grant was either on upset price or a free grant or for a price less than upset price; and iii) that the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the Rules.” 12. Thus, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Assistant Commissioner cannot declare an - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 alienation void unless he records a finding that the alienation has taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the Grant Rules. Thus, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Assistant Commissioner is not vested in law and ignoring the fact that the appeal and the revision orders of re-grant have already attained finality, the order or re-grant has been confirmed. Once a re-grant order has attained finality, the Assistant Commissioner ceases to have jurisdiction to examine the legality of alienations effected thereafter. 13. It is not in dispute that the alienation in favour of the petitioner was affected pursuant to permission granted by the competent authority and after the re-grant order dated 24.06.2002. The sale deed dated 27.03.2008 evidences that the alienation was effected pursuant to prior permission granted by the Competent authority under Rule 9 (1)(i) of the Grant Rules. Therefore, the essential condition declaring the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 alienation void, namely, that it was within the prohibited period and without permission, is absent. 14. Further, the Division Bench in H.M.Hanumanthraju’s case (supra), at paragraphs 5 to 7, has held as under: “5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddaiah v. Hutchamma has held that: “Although Government is competent to resume the land under the terms of the Rules for a breach of prohibition against alienation within a specified period, such resumption is not compulsory or automatic and the alienee from the grantee did acquire a title to the land which would be put an end to, only if action for resumption was taken by the Government or its officers.” 6. Similar view has been taken by one of us (G.C. Bharuka, J.) in the case of Gavi Sidde Gowda v. State of Karnataka and in Dakshayanamma v. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 7. If the contention of the respondent revenue authorities that alienation in favour of the appellants were made in violation of the non- alienation clause of the grant is correct, then they ought to have restored to the above Rule 9 of the Rules for cancellation of the grant itself and only thereafter they could have initiated proceedings - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1983 WP No. 100162 of 2026 under Section 136(3) of the Act for correction of the revenue entries. But, without cancelling the grant, they could not have adopted indirect way of cancelling the grant by changing the mutation entry. This is ex facie impermissible in law.” 15. The aforesaid decisions squarely apply to the present case. The entire action initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under the Grant Rules for cancellation of alienation is vitiated for want of jurisdiction. 16. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Annexure–A) is hereby quashed. iii. If any entries have been altered in the revenue records, pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be restored within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11