Smt Kanthamma vs The Deputy Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 9473 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Kanthamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 October, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC:43218
                                                      WP No. 29617 of 2014


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 29617 OF 2014 (KLR-REG)

                   BETWEEN:

                         SMT KANTHAMMA
                         W/O PERUMALLAPPA
                         AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                         RESIDING AT MASTHI VILLAGE
                         MALUR TALUK
                         KOLAR DISTRICT
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. K.H. SOMASEKHAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                         KOLAR DISTRICT
                         KOLAR
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S       2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH           KOLAR SUB DIVISION
COURT OF                 KOLAR
KARNATAKA

                   3.    THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION
                         OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION
                         MALUR TALUK
                         REPTD BY TAHASILDAR
                         KOLAR DISTRICT

                   4.    M ABDUL KHALEEM
                         S/O ABDUL KHAYUM @ M AMEERJAN
                         AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
                         R/AT MASTHI VILLAGE
                                  -2-
                                               NC: 2025:KHC:43218
                                             WP No. 29617 of 2014


 HC-KAR




     MALUR TALUK
     KOLAR DISTRICT
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. Y. NAGARAJ FOR
    SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
    SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

     THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21.5.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RA NO. 7/2007-08
ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
12.4.2007 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-A AND F AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                            ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is assailing the order

passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, Kolar

District, in R.A.No.7/2007-8 dated 21.05.2014, whereby

respondent No.1 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.4

herein against the order passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant

Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, in LNDRU

No.25/2005-06 dated 12.04.2007 and also the order dated

12.02.2004 passed by respondent No.3 - Committee for

Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation in favour of the

petitioner and thereby directed the Tahsildar to conduct spot

inspection and draw mahazar to ascertain the possession of

NC: 2025:KHC:43218

HC-KAR

subject land by the parties and thereafter to take necessary

action.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is in possession

and enjoyment of land measuring 30 guntas in Sy.No.21

situated at Sonnappadoddi Village, Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk,

Kolar District and thereafter, she filed an application for

regularization of her unauthorized cultivation by placing all the

documents before respondent No.3 - Committee. The

Committee, after conducting spot inspection and drawing

mahazar, had granted 30 guntas of land in favour of the

petitioner and also issued saguvali chit on 14.08.1984 and by

virtue of the same, the name of the petitioner was mutated in

the revenue record in respect of subject land.

3. When things stood thus, respondent No.4 interfered with

the possession of subject land and filed an application in Form

No.53 for regularization of his unauthorized occupation of 2

acres of land in the very same survey number i.e., Sy.No.21.

4. Respondent No.3 - Committee, after holding an enquiry,

rejected the claim of respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated

06.07.2004. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 preferred

NC: 2025:KHC:43218

HC-KAR

an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner - respondent

No.2. Respondent No.2, on reassessment of facts and the

documents, rejected the appeal filed by respondent No.4 vide

order dated 12.04.2007. However, respondent No.4 questioned

the said order before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner

and the Deputy Commissioner, after perusal of records,

cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner and

thereby directed the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry by conducting

spot inspection and to draw mahazar in respect of possession of

subject land by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and

thereafter to take necessary action. Aggrieved by which, the

petitioner is before this Court in the instant petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.4 and the

learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

6. The primary contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner was in possession of subject

land since four decades and after considering the said aspect,

respondent No.3 - Committee has granted 30 guntas of land in

Sy.No.21 in favour of the petitioner and saguvali chit was

NC: 2025:KHC:43218

HC-KAR

issued on 14.08.1984, based on the report/recommendation of

the Tahsildar. The said order was challenged by respondent

No.4, which came to be affirmed by the Assistant

Commissioner. In such circumstances, the Deputy

Commissioner without holding proper enquiry ought not to

have cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner

unilaterally. Hence, he prays to allow the writ petition.

7. Per contra, respondent No.4 contended that while passing

the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has clearly

observed that there was a civil dispute in respect of title of the

subject land between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in

OS.No.24/2002 and though the suit filed by the petitioner was

decreed initially, the said order was challenged by respondent

No.4 in RA.No.11/2011 and the First Appellate Court set aside

the judgment passed in OS.No.24/2002 and remitted the

matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. In such

circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed

the appeal of respondent No.4 and cancelled the grant made in

favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

writ petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:43218

HC-KAR

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the

impugned order.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions

of the respective parties and perused the materials on record.

10. As could be gathered from records, in Sy.No.21 situated

at Sonnappadoddi Village, Masti Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar

District, the petitioner was granted 30 guntas of land by

respondent No.3 - Committee. Subsequently, respondent No.4

also filed an application in Form No.53 for grant of 2 acres of

land in the very same survey number. However, the Committee

rejected the claim of respondent No.4. Subsequently, the said

order was questioned before the Assistant Commissioner, which

came to be affirmed. On appeal, by respondent No.4, the

Deputy Commissioner allowed the same on the ground that

there was a civil suit pending in respect of title of subject land.

The Deputy Commissioner, while disposing of the appeal,

cancelled the grant of 30 guntas of land made in favour of the

petitioner in the year 1984. The Deputy Commissioner has also

observed that the land claimed by respondent No.4 includes the

land granted in favour of the petitioner in Sy.No.21. As such,

NC: 2025:KHC:43218

HC-KAR

he has directed the Tahsildar to conduct spot inspection and to

draw mahazar in respect of subject land to ascertain the

possession of land by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and

thereafter to take necessary action.

11. In view of the above, I find no error in the impugned

order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for the simple

reason that the civil suit is also pending before the Civil Court

for declaration of title in respect of subject land between the

petitioner and respondent No.4 and that the Tahsildar, as

directed by the Deputy Commissioner, is required to conduct

spot inspection and draw mahazar in respect of possession of

subject land by the petitioner and respondent No.4 and

thereafter to take necessary action. As such, till the Tahsildar

takes necessary action with regard to possession of subject

land as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, the parties, i.e.,

either the petitioner or respondent No.4, whoever is in

possession of subject land shall not be dispossessed from the

same. The Tahsildar/Respondent No.3 - Committee shall

conclude the proceedings as early as possible, at any rate,

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order.