The central legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a land grant for any violation of the grant conditions must be done by following the procedure under Rule 9 of the Rules, and not solely based on Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

1. Writ petitioner claims to have succeeded to the property, an agricultural land measuring 2 acres 16 guntas in Sy No 64 of Bhuthanahalli village, Jigani hobli, Anekal taluk in Bangalore district.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that this extent of land had been initially granted to one Gidda Bhovi s/o Munivenktappa; that her husband also by name Munivenkatappa is the brother of Gidda Bhovi; that the brothers were living together and the subject land was being treated as family property and enjoyed by both brothers; that Gidda Bhovi, who had been granted this land by government on 10-12-1960, had died without any issues and was survived only by his brother Munivenkatappa; that Munivenkatappa continued to be in possession and cultivation of the land along with his wife, the writ petitioner; that the husband of the petitioner also died and following this, petitioner had sought for change of khata in her name in respect of subject land; that it had been so changed in proceedings No IHC 8/1986-87 and the petitioner has continued in exclusive possession and cultivation of the land and khata stood in her name as per the succession to the land which had been originally granted in favour of Gidda Bhovi.

3. It appears, the tahsildar, Anekal taluk reported to the deputy commissioner urging to take action under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act], as he was of the opinion that revenue entries in the name of petitioner in respect of the subject land as per IHC No 8/1986-87 are not sustainable, as the land had not been transferred by the original grantee during his life etc. and the tahsildar had made a report to the deputy commissioner for holding an enquiry under Section 136(3) of the Act and to take necessary steps for correction of the revenue entries.

4. Following the same, deputy commissioner had issued notice dated 7-12-2010 under Section 136(3) of the Act to the petitioner calling upon her to defend the entries in her name by producing the original documents etc., regarding the grant of land in her favour. Petitioner had explained to the show cause notice by producing the grant certificate issued in favour of Gidda Bhovi, report of the revenue officials and a copy of the judgment and decree passed in OS No 189 of 1987, on the file of munsiff court at Anekal, filed by one Muniyappa against the petitioner, who had claimed that the subject land had been gifted in favour of his mother, who is the sister of Gidda Bhovi and the defendant in the suit, writ petitioner, should be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the said Muniyappa. Petitioner claims that the original grantee had died issue-less; that his wife predeceased; that her husband Munivenkatappa - brother of Gidda Bhovi -was the sole successor; that they were living together and enjoyed the property together; that after the death of her husband, writ petitioner being exclusive successor being the wife of Munivenkatappa had succeeded to the property and therefore proceedings in IHC No 8/1986-87 showing her name in the revenue records is justified etc. The findings in OS No 189 of 1987 were also relied upon to contend that as against the claim of the plaintiff in the suit that the subject land had been gifted in favour of his mother, the civil court had found that while there was no gift deed in favour of mother of plaintiff, and it was observed that petitioner herein was in lawful possession of the property being the legal successor of original grantee etc.

5. The deputy commissioner, after issuing notice to parties concerned and hearing them, held that it was the stand of the writ petitioner in her objections that the subject land had been gifted in her favour and also noticing that civil court in the suit referred to above had observed that gift of land by the original grantee is in violation of the conditions of grant and therefore even if there is a gift deed, it wil