The failure to provide sufficient documentary evidence of a land grant and an 11-year delay in contesting an allotment results in dismissal of the petition under Articles 226 and 227.

CAV ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing order dated 19.07.2019 in RRT/CR(E).34/2012-13 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.3 issued by the respondent No.3, order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure-K) issued by the respondent No.2, inter- alia seeking direction to the respondents to effect khata in respect of the subject land based on the order of grant dated 17.08.1951 and to consider the representation dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure-G).

2. Relevant facts for adjudication of the case as averred in the writ petition are that, father of the petitioners-Thimmarayappa was granted a land bearing Sy No. 48 of Kachamaranahalli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 02 acres, as per the grant order dated 17.08.1951 (Annexure-B). The grant certificate is placed on record as Annexure-C. It is stated that, the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioners, was questioned in RA No.48/1951-52 and same came to be dismissed on 07.10.1952 (Annexure-D). The said order was confirmed before the Revenue Commissioner, Mysore in appeal in RA No.142/1953-54 vide order dated 21.09.1953 (Annexure-E). It is the case of the petitioners that, father of the petitioners- Thimmarayappa, died on 15.01.2003, and thereafter, the petitioners continued to be in cultivation of the land in question. Petitioner No.2 has made an application for khata transfer on 15.03.2010 (Annexure-G), and thereafter, the Revenue Inspector conducted mahazar and report of the Revenue Inspector is produced at Annexure-H. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.5 based on the report at Annexure-H, referred the matter to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexure-J) to verify the genuineness of the grant made in favour of the father of the petitioners. During the pendency of the said proceedings, land to an extent of 04 acres, 35 guntas, in Sy No.48 of Kachamaranahalli Village, was reserved for allotment of sites to the people who lost sites in Benniganahalli Village as per order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure-K). The petitioners contend that the allotment, made in favour of respondent No.6, including their land is illegal and that the respondent-authorities failed to consider the prior grant made in favour of Thimmarayappa. Hence, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri. C. M Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Rajendra M.S. for the petitioners; Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. M.R. Balakrishna, for respondent No.6 and Sri. Y.D. Shivashankar, learned counsel appearing for impleading respondent in IA No.1 of 2025.

4. Sri. C. M. Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, land in question has been granted in favour of father of the petitioners and same is evident as per Annexure-E to the writ petition. He also referred to the order dated 17.08.1951 (Annexure-B) on the file of the Revenue Commissioner to substantiate the grant. He further contended that, despite the land is in cultivation of the father of the petitioners and the petitioners for more than sixty years, allotting the very same land to the respondent No.6 without hearing the petitioners nor considering the factual aspects on record, which requires interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of this Court reported in Umesh v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga in (2009) 3 Kant LJ 639 (DB) and order dated 18.11.2022 in W.P.No. 33546 of 2015 and argued that, the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.6 is contrary to law and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. I.Tharanatha P