[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.Virupakshayya S/O Neelakantayya vs The Deputy Commissioner on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4626
WP No. 113396 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 113396 OF 2019 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIRUPAKSHAYYA S/O NEELAKANTAYYA,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AGALKERA, TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA.S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 231.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
MR 3. THE TAHSILDAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA KOPPAL TALUK, KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4626
WP No. 113396 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Mrutyunjay S.Hallikeri., counsel for the petitioner and
Smt. Mala B.Bhute., AGA for respondents 1 to 3-State have
appeared in person.
2. The Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"1. ISSUE, Writ, Order or direction in the nature of writ
of certiorari by quashing the order dated 15.09.2017
passed in Appeal No.179/2006 by the Hon'ble Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Vide Annexure-J, and
consequently quash the order dated 01.12.2005 bearing
Case No.Kandaya/appeal/11/12/13/2004-05 passed by
respondent No.1 Vide Annexure-H in so far as grant
made in favour of petitioner & order bearing
No.Rev:LND:120:2002-03 dated 03.09.2004 passed by
respondent No.2 Vide Annexure-G, in so far as grant
made in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. Pass any such other order or direction that may be
deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the
Revenue Inspector, after conducting a mandatory inquiry,
submitted a report holding that the petitioner was eligible for a
grant of land, which he had been cultivating for more than 20
years. Based on the said report, the Tahsildar, Koppal Taluk and
District, by order dated 30.03.1999, granted the land in favour of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4626
HC-KAR
the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid the requisite
amount and her name was duly entered in the revenue records.
After a lapse of nearly four years, the Assistant
Commissioner, acting on a complaint made by a third party,
initiated proceedings and cancelled the grant made in favour of
the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a
revision before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be
dismissed by order dated 01.12.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal
No.179/2006, which also came to be dismissed by order dated
15.09.2017. Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Rule
25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, only the authority
that has granted the land is competent to cancel the same. It is
submitted that in the present case, the grant having been made
by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction
to cancel the grant. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to
be set aside.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4626
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate
seeks to justify the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of
the writ petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the
Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel the grant of
land made by the Tahsildar.
Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969,
mandates that the power to cancel a grant and resume land
resides with the original granting authority. To be precise, the
authority making the cancellation must be the same as the one
that granted the land.
In view of the above, the action of the Assistant
Commissioner in cancelling the grant is without jurisdiction and
contrary to the provisions of law. Consequently, the orders
passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4626
HC-KAR
Appellate Tribunal, confirming the same, are also unsustainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned orders dated 15.09.2017, passed by the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.179/2006,
dated 01.12.2005, passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Koppal, and dated 03.09.2004, passed
by the Assistant Commissioner, are hereby quashed.
iii. The grant order dated 30.03.1999 made by the
Tahsildar, Koppal Taluk and District, in favour of the
petitioner is hereby restored.
iv. No order as to costs
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
AM/-
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 17.1
