1. People who come to this Court invoking writ jurisdiction but based on misrepresentation either on facts or on legal position are persons who deserve no relief in the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Writ petitioner claims to be a person, who has purchased an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.146 of Balagodu Village, Belagodu Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District as per the sale transaction dated 3.11.2004, said to have been executed by one Mr. Nagaraj, S/o. Deveeraiah who is the original grantee of the very village, is further claiming that he had been granted an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in this survey number as per a grant order DCPR 372/81-82 dated 21.6.1982, as noticed somewhere during the year 1985 or earlier as reflected in saguvali chit dated 19.8.1985 (copy produced as Annexure A to the petition).

3. It is the version of the petitioner that the said Nagaraj while sold an extent of 1 acres 20 guantas of this land, another extent is sold by the very person in favour of some 3rd party and when the petitioner based on such sale transaction made efforts to get his name entered in the revenue records, to the extent of interest acquired by him, while it did not prove fruitful and while the Tahsildar was inclined to pass orders to mutate the revenue records in the name of the petitioner, some of the villagers it appears disputed the boundaries of the land granted in favour of the said Nagaraj etc., but nevertheless Tahsildar over ruled the objections and having mutated the entries, the villagers pursued the matter before the Asst. Commissioner who thought it proper not merely for deleting the name, but also, having found that the grantee had violated the condition of the grant, of not using the land within three years from the date of the grant thought it proper to cancel the grant itself, i.e. how the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.06.2006 (copy produced as Annexure-F).

4. The aggrieved petitioner had carried the matter further to the Deputy Commissioner by way of revision, but the Deputy Commissioner found no occasion to interfere with the order of the Asst. Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition as per order dated 7.12.2010 in No.RP.4A/2006-07 (copy produced as Annexure-G to the petition), the present petition seeking the following prayer:-

“Issue writ of certiorari or order or direction by setting aside the order dated 7.12.2010 issued by respondent no.1 in No.Revision Petition No.4A/2006-07 as per Annexure-G insofar as 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy No.146 of Balagodu Village.”

5. Mr. M. Babu Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Asst. Commissioner could not have cancelled the grant in its entirety without any proper enquiry, without notice to the concerned persons and particularly, with the petitioner having acquired interest in an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in the said survey number from out of the total grant in favour of the said Nagaraju even in terms of the sale deed executed by the very grantee; that it is clearly in violation of proviso (2) of Rule25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules”).

6. It is also submitted that in an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLR Act’) that too at the instance of the villagers who were objecting to the revenue entries being mutated to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in the name of the petitioner, the Asst. Commissioner could not have embarked upon exercising his power to cancel the grant itself that too on the premise that the original grantee – the 2nd respondent before the Asst. Commissioner in respect of whom the grant was made, when the scope of the appeal was limited to the revenue entries and subject matter was not one relating to a proposal for canceling the grant for violation of the terms and