M Govinda Bhat vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7804 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

         WRIT PETITION No.40594/2018 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     M.GOVINDA BHAT
       S/O M ACHUTHA BHAT
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
       RESIDING AT "MADHUVANA"
       MANIMOOLE HOUSE
       MANILA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 524 243

2.     SMT.INDIRA G BHAT
       W/O M GOVINDA BHAT
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
       RESIDING AT "MADHUVANA"
       MANIMOOLE HOUSE
       MANILA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK
       DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 524 243
                                      ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT
       REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
       M.S. BUILDINGS
       BANGALORE - 560 001
2.     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       MANGALURU SUB DIVISION
       MANGALURU - 01
                               2



3.   TAHASILDAR
     BANTWALA TALUK
     DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
     B.C. ROAD - 524 243                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY R-2 DATED NIL,
VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINABLE
BESIDES BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ALSO BARRED
BY LIMITATION.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners

for cancellation of grant and those proceedings are the

subject matter of challenge before this Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

as on 24.12.1994 and 07.02.1995 the lands being the

unauthorized possession of the petitioners were regularized.

However, nearly 20 years after the said order was passed,

proceedings were initiated for cancellation on the ground that

the petitioners, being the husband and wife and thereby

members of the same family had illegally secured two grants

which was impermissible in law.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places strong

reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in

W.P.No.2083/2016 (KLR-RES) decided on 11.01.2022. In

that writ petition it has been held that there is no restriction

that the lands should not be granted to more than one

member of the same family and it has also been held that the

proceedings for cancellation of grant ought to be initiated

with a reasonable period of time.

4. In the instant case also, the question raised by

the petitioners is that there was no bar for securing order of

regularization in respect of members of the same family and

the initiation of proceedings of cancellation after 20 years

could not be sustained.

5. Since this Court already held in the

aforementioned writ petition that there is no bar for granting

lands to the members of the same family and initiation of

proceedings for cancellation ought to be within a reasonable

period, the subject matter of the writ petition is covered by

the ratio laid down in the aforementioned writ petition. As a

consequence, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings

initiated for cancellation of grant against the petitioners is

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKC