- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5968 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a). 1(b) 1(c) SMT. JAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS., SMT. M.R.NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O LANKESH D/O LATE JAYAMMA R/A NO.13/6, SRI RAMAKRISHNA ENCLAVE 4TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM BANGALORE-560021. SMT. M.R. VIMALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O RAJANNA D/O LATE JAYAMMA SMT. M.R.LEELAVATHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O RAMAKRISHNA D/O LATE JAYAMMA BOTH 1(b) & 1(c) ARE R/A MARCONAHALLI VILLAGE AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.YASHWANTH NELAGI N.T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O RAJANNA, R/AT MARCONAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. 2. THE TAHSILDAR NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. 4. 5. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. SMT. KRISHNAVENI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O MR. DASHARATH R/O MARCONAHALLI VILLAGE AMRUTHUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572111. SHILPA M.D. AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS D/O LATE DASHARATHA R/A NO.92, 3RD CROSS 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMAN NAGAR HEGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 7. SRIKANTH M.D AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE DASHARATHA R/A NO.92, 3RD CROSS 1ST MAIN, LAKSHMAN NAGAR HEGANAHALLI CROSS, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA., AGA FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.AJAY KADKOL., ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7 V/O DTD. 24/03/2025 R5 TO R7 ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.06.12.2016 PASSED BY THE R-4 IN R.A.NO.06/2013 VIDE ANNEX-F AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.25.03.2013 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN PROCEEDINGS IN R.A.NO.06/09-10 VIDE ANNEX-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Here is a strange case where at the instance of the 3rd respondent the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, has entertained an appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to cancel a grant that was made in favour of the petitioner 30 years ago. The ground on which the 1st respondent sought to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 raise a challenge to the grant made in favour of the petitioner is that the petitioner failed to disclose in her application the fact that the petitioner's husband was a Government Employee and the petitioner's father was employed in the Karnataka Electricity Board, when the application was filed by the petitioner. 2. Having regard to the contentions raised by the 1st respondent, this Court finds that the relevant provision which could be attracted to consider the application filed by the petitioner who sought for grant of land would be Rule 4 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. The provision of Rule 4 reads as follows; “4. Persons eligible for grant of land for agricultural purposes. (1) Lands available for disposal may be granted for agricultural purposes under these rules to a person.- (i) who has attained the age of eighteen; and (ii) [whose gross annual income does not exceed rupees eight thousand; and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 (iii) who is either a bona fide agriculturist cultivating the land personally or has bona fide intention to take up personal cultivation; and (iv)who is not a sufficient holder: [Provided that in the case of ex-servicemen and soldiers land may be granted if the gross annual income of the applicant does not exceed rupees eight lakhs, so however, there shall be no income limit for grant of land to applicants who are widows or other dependants of soldiers who have died in action and in the case of ex-servicemen who have become totally handicapped in action.] Provided further that the extent of land granted to any person shall not together with the land already held by such person exceed the limits prescribed for a sufficient holder in Rule 2(15).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) any person may be granted- the land adjacent or close to the land already held by him on collection of market value as on the date of grant to be determined by the authority granting the land, if such land is, in the opinion of such authority required for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 better enjoyment or better cultivation of the land so held: Provided that no such grant shall be made of an extent exceeding in the case of wet or garden land half hectare and in the case of dry land one hectare and that the total extent of land held after such grant does not exceed the ceiling area according to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.” 3. On a plain reading of the provision there is no such bar that if the applicants' family members are employed, they cannot make an application or that they will not be eligible for grant. 4. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent seeks to point out to clause (ii) sub rule (1) of Rule 4 which mandates that the gross annual income of the applicant should not exceed Rs.8,000/-. Even this provision will not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was never the contention of the 1st respondent that the gross annual income of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 petitioner when she filed the application was exceeding Rs.8,000/-. On plain facts, it is clear that the petitioner was never employed when she made the application. There is no information forthcoming from the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding the gross annual income of the petitioner who was the applicant, that there was any information placed before the authority that at the relevant point of time the gross annual income of the petitioner/applicant exceeded Rs.8,000/-. 5. The other contentions of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent that fraud vitiates everything and that there is an order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Smt.Puttamma and Others Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimogga District and Others, in Writ Appeal No.436/2010 dated 08.01.2014, having been considered, this Court finds that the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5556 WP No. 5968 of 2017 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order 25.03.2013 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-E, and the consequential order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F are hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL