1. Challenge to cancellation of land grant for alleged non-compliance under Rule 108-K of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
B. M. Shyam Prasad, J
K C Rohith – Appellant
Versus
Prl. Secretary – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.9187/2021 (KLR)|WRIT PETITION NO.9183/2021 (KLR)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pavana Chandra Shetty H
For the Respondents: A.R. Srinivas
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pavana Chandra Shetty H
For the Respondents: A.R. Srinivas
A grant under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules can only be cancelled if it is established that the grantee furnished false information or played fraud; without such findings, the cancellation order lacks jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Land Revenue Law - Cancellation of Grant - Rule 108-K of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - Power to cancel a grant under Rule 108-K requires a definite finding that the applicant furnished false information or committed fraud. Cancellation based on land ownership of family members without discussing whether such holdings exceed permissible limits or involve fraud is without jurisdiction. (Para 4, 5)
(B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction and Appeal - Proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are distinct from those under Section 49 of the same Act. An appeal against an order passed under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules should be filed under Section 49 of the KLR Act, not Section 136(3). (Para 3)
Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel the land grants under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules without findings of fraud or false information, and whether the appeal filed under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act was maintainable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued Assistant Commissioner cancelled grant without finding false information or fraud as required under Rule 108-K. (Para 4 )
3. Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals under Section 136(3); proper remedy was under Sections 49 and 56. (Para 3 )
4. An order under Rule 108-K can be cancelled only if false information or fraud is established, not on other grounds. (Para 5 )
5. What is the proper appellate remedy against an order under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules?
The proper remedy is an appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, with further remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 56. (Para 3 )
6. Under what circumstances can a land grant be cancelled under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules?
A grant can be cancelled only if the grantee furnished false information or played fraud, as these are the only two circumstances mentioned in Rule 108-K. (Para 5 )
7. Does ownership of land by family members alone justify cancellation of a grant under Rule 108-K?
No, the Assistant Commissioner must discuss details of family members and whether the land held exceeds the permissible limit, and must find false information or fraud. (Para 5 )
IN W.P.No.9187/2021
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
BETWEEN:
K C ROHITH
S/O LATE CHANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT HAISODLURU VILLAGE
VIRAJAPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571249
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY. H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRL.SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI-571249.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADIKERI SUB DIVISION
MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT-571249.
4. TAHSILDAR
VIRAJAPET TALUK
VIRAJAPET
KODAGU DISTRICT-571249
5. AKRAMA-SAKRAMA SAMITHI
TALUK OFFICE
VIRAJAPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571249
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO.RA/39/2017-18 PASSED BY THE R-2, DTD 22.01.2020 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD 28.02.2017 BY CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R-5 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DTD 29.07.2011, MEASURING 4 ACRES 95 CENTS AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.181/1K OF HAISODLURU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI HOBLI, VIRAJAPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT VIDE ANNX-A AND B.
IN W.P.No.9183/2021
BETWEEN:
K C UDAYA
S/O LATE CHANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT HAISODLURU VILLAGE
VIRAJAPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571249
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRL.SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI-571249.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADIKERI SUB DIVISION
MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT 571249.
4. TAHSILDAR
VIRAJEPET TALUK
VIRAJEPET
KODAGU DISTRICT 571249
5. AKRAMA-SAKRAMA SAMITHI
TALUK OFFICE
VIRAJEPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571249
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 02.01.2020 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI SUB DIVISION, MADIKERI DATED 28.02.2017, BY CANCELLING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R5 INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 29.07.2011, MEASURING 4 ACRES 95 CENTS AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.181/1B OF HAISODLURU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI HOBLI, VIRAJAPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.
2. The petitioners, who have the advantage of grant of 4 acres 95 cents of lands each in Sy.No.181/1K and Sy.No.181/1B of Haisodluru Village, Hudikeri Hobli, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District respectively, have preferred these petitions impugning the respective orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Madikere Sub Division [the Third Respondent] under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ('KLR Rules' for brevity) and the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri [the Second Respondent] under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ['the KLR Act' for brevity]. The details of the impugned Orders are as follows:
[a] In WP No. 9187/2021 - The Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 28.02.2017 in No.NCR(V)320/14-15) and the Deputy Commissioner's Order dated 22.01.2020 in No.RA/39/2017-18 [Annexure – B and A in WP No. 9187/2021];
[b] In WP No. 9183/2021 - The Assistant Commissioner's Order dated 28.02.2017 in No.NCR(V)318/14-15) and the Deputy Commissioner's Order dated 22.01.2020 in No.RA/36/2017-18 [Annexure – B and A in WP No. 9183/2021];
3. The petitioners being aggrieved by the Assistant Commissioner's impugned orders dated 28.02.2017 in the aforesaid proceedings under Rule 108-K of the KLR Rules have preferred the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. But indubitably the petitioners should have filed their appeals under Section 49 of the KLR Act with further remedy under Section 56 of the KLR Act before the Karnataka Appel
