IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 33060 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O K.V. SONNAPPA, R/AT KOMMAHALLI VILLAGE, THORALAKKI POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, Digitally BENGALURU - 560 001, signed by KAVYA R REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

Location:

High Court 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, of Karnataka BENGALURU DIVISION, REVISION DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION AT KOLAR, KOLAR - 566 101.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, MALUR TALUK, MALUR - 563 130.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R-3 IN CASE NO. LND.RUO(A)85/2019-20 AND ISSUE WRIT/ORDERS BY GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEF AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Prima facie, the impugned order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, in cancelling the grant without conducting an enquiry notifying the petitioner needs consideration at the hand of this Court.

2. Upon a meticulous examination of the ordersheet presented at Annexure-C, it is evident that during the initial date of hearing, the competent authority, without affording a reasonable opportunity to the affected party, proceeded to unilaterally cancel the grant order. Such an action, lacking due process, not only reflects arbitrary exercise of power but also constitutes a flagrant breach of the well-established principles of natural justice. The right to be heard and the duty to provide a fair opportunity to present one's case form the cornerstone of administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. The hasty cancellation of the grant order, devoid of procedural safeguards, undermines these foundational principles and cannot be sustained in law.

3. It is a settled legal proposition that authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions are mandated to adhere to procedural fairness and impartiality. This obligation flows from the doctrine of natural justice, which encompasses two cardinal rules: audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in causa sua (the rule against bias). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that even where statutory provisions are silent, compliance with these principles is implicit in any fair decision-making process. The apex court in catena of judgements has consistently held that any order which adversely affects the rights of an individual must be preceded by a fair hearing and reasonable opportunity for representation. In this case, however, the authority's unilateral action without conducting an enquiry or issuing notice disregards this mandate and amounts to an abuse of quasi- judicial powers. The need for transparency, procedural diligence, and fairness is not merely a statutory obligation but a constitutional imperative under Article 14, ensuring equality before the law and protection against arbitrary actions.

4. At this juncture, the learned HCGP, drawing attention to the relevant records, has fairly submitted that the matter may be remitted for a fresh and comprehensive enquiry in strict compliance with legal norms.

Recording the submission of learned HCGP, this Court passes the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 19.06.2020, passed by Respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, is hereby quashed.

iii. Liberty is reserved to Respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner to conduct a fresh and proper enquiry strictly in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity to all concerned parties.

iv.