- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.32148 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VEERABADRAIAH S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. SMT. BAGYA W/O P. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. SRI. ERAIAH S/O CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 5. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O ERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 6. SMT. TARA W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 7. SRI. NAGARAJA S/O DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 8. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O CHIKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 9. SRI. P.R. HEMANTHA KUMAR S/O RAMANATHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 10. SRI. DORESWAMY S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 11. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O SONNARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 12. SMT. DEVIRAMMA W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 13. SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O CHIKKIRIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 14. SRI. LOKESHA S/O LAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 15. SRI. PAPANNA S/O LAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 16. SRI. NINGEGOWDA S/O MALLEE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 17. SMT. MANGALA W/O DEVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 18. SRI NAGAMMA S/O NINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 19. SMT. LATHA MANI W/O P. LAKSHME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 ALL ARE RESIDING AT: PERUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH A.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. 3. THE SECRETARY REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF LAND COMMITTEE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 4. THE CHAIRMAN REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF LAND COMMITTEE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. 5. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. P.M. SADANANDA S/O P.M. MANJAIAH, AGE: MAJOR. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 7. PUTTEGOWDA S/O HONNEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 8. DEVARAJU S/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 9. MANJEGOWDA S/O SOOREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 10. P.L. NANDEESHA S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED: MAJOR. 11. P.N. SHIVEGOWDA S/O SOOREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 12. THAMMAAIH S/O EREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 13. MALLESHA S/O EREGOWDA @ PUTTEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 14. MALLAPPA S/O ERAPPA, AGE: MAJOR. 15. P.L. VENKATESH S/O LINGEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 16. KUMAR S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 17. MALLESH S/O EREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 18. DEVARAJU S/O NANJNEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 19. VASUDEVACHAR S/O NARASACHAR, AGE: MAJOR. 20. NAGEGOWDA S/O KALEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 21. THIMMEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 22. THIMMAPPA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 23. P.N. RAMESH S/O NANJEGOWDA AGE: MAJOR. 24. M.P. PUTTARAJU S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 25. SHIVANNA S/O HALAGEGOWDA AGE: MAJOR. 26. CHANDREGOWDA S/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 27. LAKSHMEGOWDA S/O HONNEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 28. P.S. CHANDREGOWDA S/O SOOREGOWDA AGED: MAJOR. 29. MANJEGOWDA S/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 30. MALLESH S/O CHANDREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 31. NANJEGOWDA S/O KEMPEGOWDA, AGED: MAJOR. 32. P.N. PRAKASH S/O NANJEGOWDA AGE: MAJOR. 33. NINGEGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA AGE: MAJOR. 34. P.J. MALLESH S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 35. MANJEGOWDA S/O MANJEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 36. SHIVANNA S/O. ANNEGOWDA, AGED: MAJOR. 37. RAMEGOWDA S/O. MARISIDDEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 38. MALLESH S/O HALAGEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 39. MALLESHAGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 40. MANJUNATH S/O YALLAPPAGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 41. PUSHPALATHA W/O KRISHNAGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 42. KRISHNAKUMAR S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 43. RANGASWAMY S/O R. RANGEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 44. MALLEGOWDA S/O PARADESHIGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 45. P.B. MALLESHA S/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 46. P.M. MOHAN KUMAR S/O MARIGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 47. P.N. MANJEGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 48. RANGEGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 49. MANJEGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 50. MUDLIGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 51. CHANDRASKHEKAR S/O CHIKKEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 52. BASAVEGOWDA S/O MARISIDDEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 53. SIDDEGOWDA S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 54. CHIKKEGWODA S/O EREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 55. MANJULA S/O EREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 56. CHIKKEGOWDA S/O PUTTASWAMYGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 57. NANJEGOWDA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 58. PRAKASH S/O NANJEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 59. NINGEGOWDA S/O HANUMANTEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 60. NANJEGOWDA S/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 61. NAGAMMA D/O LATE THIMMEOWDA, AGED: MAJOR. 62. SHIVANNA S/O MATEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 63. PUTTASWAMY S/O MARIGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 64. BILIYAMMA D/O BASAVEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 65. MANJEGOWDA S/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 66. MANJEGOWDA S/O PASARIMALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 67. ROOPALAKSHMI W/O SANNEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 68. RATHNAMMA W/O SOOREGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 69. JYOTHI W/O NADEESH, AGE: MAJOR. 70. MANJAMMA W/O MALLESH AGE: MAJOR. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 71. RATHNAMMA W/O MANJEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 72. RAJAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGE: MAJOR. 73. DYAMAKKA W/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 74. BHAGYAMMA W/O P.C. CHANDRASHEKAR AGE: MAJOR. 75. RANGAMMA W/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 76. PARVATHI W/O CHIKKALLIGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. 77. DEVIRAMMA W/O SANNAMOGA, AGE: MAJOR. 78. JAYALAKSHMI W/O THAMMAIAH, AGE: MAJOR. 79. THAYAMMA W/O MALLEGOWDA, AGE: MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 79 ARE R/AT PERUMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 R7, R8, R10, R12 TO R20, R22 TO R24, R26, R28 TO R34, R36, R40 TO R45, R48, R52, R53, R54, R57 TO R62, R64, R67 TO R70, R72 TO R74, R77, R78 AND R79 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 26.04.2025, NOTICE TO R6, R9, R11, R25, R27, R35, R37, R38, R39, R46, R47, R49, R50, R55, R56, R63, R65, R66, R71, R75 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 26.04.2025, PETITION AGAINST R21, R51 AND R76 IS ABATED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30TH MAY, 2009 PASSED IN CASE NO.RA.30/2005-06 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB-DIVISION, HASSAN VIDE ANNEXURE-F; ORDER DATED 28TH FEBRUARY, 2014 PASSED IN CASE NO.RA.22/2009-10 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND ORDER DATED 06TH JULY, 2018 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.34/2014 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-U; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 30th May, 2009 passed by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.RA.30/2005-06; order dated 28th February, 2014 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RA.22/2009-10; and order dated 06th July 2018 (Annexure-U) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.34/2014. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners have made an application before Committee constituted for regularisation of land for regularising their unauthorised cultivation. The Committee, by its order dated 09th September, 2003, passed the order in favour of petitioners as to the regularisation of land. It is stated in the petition that the revenue records were mutated in favour of petitioners, however, at the instance of some of the residents of Perumanahalli Village, Hassan Taluk, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner/grantees under Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 before the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division in Case No.RA.30/2005-06 and the impugned order dated 30th May, 2009 (Annexure-F) was passed by the respondent No.1, cancelling the grant of land made in favour of petitioner/grantees. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred the appeal before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RA.22/2009-10 and the respondent No.2, by order dated 28th February, 2014 (Annexure-T), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and confirmed the order of the respondent No.1-Assistant - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Revision Petition No.34/2014 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court in the present petition. 3. Heard Sri. Mahesh A.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5. 4. Sri. A.S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the impugned order dated 30th May, 2009 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.1 in case No.RA.30/2005-06 submits that, though there is a delay in filing the appeal before the respondent No.1, there is no order for condoning the delay by the respondent No.1 and therefore, there is an infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners also contended that the grant made in favour of petitioners is of the year-2003, however the respondent No.1, based on the availability of Livestock Census Report of the village for the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 year 2007-08, had interfered with the grant made in favour of petitioners. Therefore, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the respondent No.2 and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, without considering the said aspect of the matter in a right perspective, have dismissed the appeal and revision petition preferred by the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 submits that the petitioners have not proved their eligibility for grant of land during the year 2003-04 and the respondent No.1, taking into consideration the land to an extent of 1 acre 9 guntas of gomal land available in the village consisting of 353 livestock and 602 persons living in the village as per the Livestock Census Report, had rightly cancelled the grant made in favour of petitioners. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate also argued that the subject land has been acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for development of industrial zone in Hassan Taluk. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 8. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the subject land has been granted in favour of petitioners on 09th September, 2003. The said order of grant was challenged by some of the residents of Perumanahalli Village, Hassan Taluk before the respondent No.1 in Case No.RA.30/2005-06. The respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner, after considering the material on record, by order dated 30th May, 2009 (Annexure- F) interfered with the order of grant made in favour of petitioners on the ground that the Livestock Census Report of Village is fairly on the lower side as to the extent of gomal land. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1, it is forthcoming that the Livestock Census report accepted by the respondent No.1 is of the year 2007-08, however, the grant made in favour of the petitioners is during the year 2003-04. In that view of the matter, the respondent No.1 ought to have called for the Livestock Census Report of the year, in which the petitioners have made an application, seeking regularisation of land. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioners that there is an infirmity in the impugned order dated 30th May, - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 2009 (Annexure-F) passed in Case No.RA.30/2005-06 by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner and the further orders passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. It is also to be noted that, though the grant has been made in favour of the petitioners during the year 2003-04, the residents of Perumanahalli Village, Hassan Taluk have preferred appeal before the respondent No.1 after an inordinate delay of more than nine years, which aspect has been ignored by the respondent No.1. 9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 28th February, 2014 (Annexure-T) passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RA.22/2009-10, it is forthcoming that the respondent No.2, accepted the very same Livestock Census Report of the year 2007-08 and passed the erroneous order confirming the order passed by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.34/2014, without going into the merits of the case, on the ground that the subject land has been handed over to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board to develop the industrial zone in - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 Hassan Taluk, had dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioners. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted on the ground that original order passed by the respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner dated 30th May, 2009 (Annexure-F) is without application of mind. Therefore, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition allowed; (ii) Order dated 30th May, 2009 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.RA.30/2005-06; order dated 28th February, 2014 (Annexure-T) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RA.22/2009-10; and order dated 06th July, 2018 (Annexure-U) passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.34/2014 are hereby set- aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1-Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the issue afresh and take decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in the light of observation made above - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30039 WP NO.32148 OF 2019 (iv) It is made clear that the respondent No.1- Assistant Commissioner, while considering the case of the petitioners herein, shall take into account the order dated 04th February, 2014 (Annexure-H) passed by the very same authority, allowing the petition of the grantees whose grant was rejected. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12