ORDER :

B. Veerappa, J.

1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing No. LND/CR/76/2007-08, dated 30-7-2010 passed by respondent 2-the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru Revenue Region as per Annexure-H. (The present writ petition is filed only in respect of 1 acre of land allotted by the Government to the original grantee deceased respondent 6-Ponnuswamy).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government allotted total 11 acres of irrigable land to the eleven land less farmers who are residing at Antaragange Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District. The Government has fixed the price of Rs. 150/- per acre exclusive water tax and contribution subject to usual conditions under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1960. The Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 5-12-1964 granted one acre of land in favour of respondent 6-Ponnuswamy and ten others on payment of Rs. 150/- per acre. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Tahsildar issued Saguvali Chit dated 23-7-1970 imposing the condition that the granted land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years. The said Ponnuswamy could not cultivated the land granted and sold the entire 1 acre of land allotted to him to respondent 7 (deceased)-Sri S. Joseph S/o. Saliana for valuable consideration on 26-7-1974 and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Badravathi Taluk. Thereafter, mutation also changed in the name of respondent 7 as per Annexure-C. After the death of respondent 7, his wife Smt. Rahelamma @ Ramalamma sold 1 acre of land to the petitioner under the sale deed dated 4-2-2000 for valuable consideration and the revenue entries also changed in the name of the petitioner in M.R. No. 27/1999-2000 and the RTC as per Annexure-G for the year 2001-2002 up to 2009-201.0. When things stood thus, on the basis of the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner dated 28-6-2007, the respondent 2 issued notice to the present petitioner. In response to the said notice, the petitioner filed detailed objection before the respondent 2 and contended that there was delay of 34 years in initiating the proceedings and also contended that except the land in question, she has left with no other lands for her livelihood and she has spent huge amount in developing the said land. Therefore, she sought to drop the proceedings. The respondent 2 without considering the material on record, has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 30-2-2010 as per Annexure-H canceling the land granted to the original grantee and directed the Deputy Commissioner to change the revenue entries made in favour of Ponnuswamy in respect of the land in question. Therefore, the petitioner is before this for the relief sought for.

3. The respondents-State Government not filed objections.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Sri Ganapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent 2 canceling the land granted in favour of the original grantee Ponnuswamy after lapse of 34 years from the date of first purchase cannot be sustained. On that ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. He further contended that though in response to the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has taken up specific contentions that the proceedings initiated is after lapse of more than three decades and except the land in question, she has no other land for her livelihood and also contended that she has spent huge amount to develop the property and therefore, requested to drop the proceedings, inspite of the same, the impugned order came to be passed. In the impugned order absolutely there is no reason assigned by the respondent 2. Therefore, in the absence of any reason, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

6. He further contended that admittedly, the grant was made on 5-12-1964. The first alienation was made on 26-7-1974 from the orig