- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15490 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJAMMA SHEDTHY W/O RAJEEVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT BALEBERU SIDDAPURA VILLAGE AND POST, KUNDAPURA TLAUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 229 (PETITIONER DOES NOT CLAIM BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJITH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI - 576 104 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 4. LAND GRANT COMMITTEE KUNDAPURA UDUPI BY ITS SECRETARY THE TAHSILDAR KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 5. TAHSILDAR KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 6. RAGHURAM SHETTY S/O LATE HIRIYANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P W D WHITE HOUSE, AMBALAPADY UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. P.S.RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.MUJTAB, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2019, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI, IN PROCEEDING BEARING NO.L.N.D/SR/11/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-K) passed by respondent No.2, order dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.3, grant order (Form No.7 dated 05.08.2003)(Annexure-H), inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent - authorities to consider the claim made by the petitioner's family as per Annexures - A and C in a time bound manner. 2. It is submitted by Sri.Ajith Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.6 herein is the brother of the petitioner and the respondent - authorities have granted the land bearing Sy.No.233-1B1 to an extent of 1.30 acres and land bearing Sy.No.244-2 to an extent of 70 cents as per Annexure-H. However, husband of the petitioner has also made an application as per Annexures - A and C and the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 same have not been considered by the respondent - authorities. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 3. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the challenge made to the orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein the grant made in favour of respondent No.6 and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the grant made in favour of respondent No.6 requires to be set-aside, and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Sri.P.S.Rajgopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf Sri.H.Mujtaba, learned counsel for respondent No.6 refer to the details of the land mentioned in the grant order made in favour of respondent No.6 as per Annexure-H ie., the land bearing Sy.No.233-1B1 and Sy.No.244-2 and also the application made by husband of the petitioner as to the land bearing Sy.No.250 of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 Siddapura Village, and further submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.6 that the petitioner has altered the name of the village in the application and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Sri.Shamanth Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 sought to justify the impugned orders and submitted that the respondent - authorities have filed two memos in respect of the status of the land in question is concerned. Accordingly, sought to consider the same. 6. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of Anexures-A and C, wherein the husband of the petitioner has filed an application seeking regularization of the unauthorized occupation in respect of land bearing Sy.No.250 of Siddapura village, Kundapura Taluk. It is also forthcoming from Form No.7 as per - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 Annexure - H, wherein the respondent - Authorities have granted an extent of 1 acre 30 cents in land bearing Sy.No.233-1B1 and an extent of 70 cents in land bearing Sy.No.244-2 of Siddapura village, Kundapura Taluk. 7. Taking into consideration that the claim made by the petitioner in land bearing Sy.No.250 which is different from the land which has been granted in favour of respondent No.6 and therefore, I am of the view that, I do not find any merit in the writ petition is concerned as to the challenge made to the grant as per Annexure-H made in favour of respondent No.6 is concerned. 8. However, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record as the respondent - authorities have filed the survey reports as to the existence of the land in question is concerned ie., the land bearing No.250 of Siddapura village, I am of view that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are hereby directed to consider the applications made by the petitioner at Annexures - A and C in accordance - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010100572019 NC: 2026:KHC:48605 WP No. 15490 of 2019 with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, in the light of the memos dated 26.09.2022 and 13.10.2022 filed by the respondent - State is concerned. 9. It is also made clear that the consideration of the application made by the petitioner shall be independent as to the grant already made in favour of the respondent No.6 is concerned. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50