IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 4693 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

RAVEENDRA SHETTY S/O LATE RAMAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT AARMAKKI HOUSE SHIROOR VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJITH A SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Digitally signed by MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, PANKAJA S DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI Location: HIGH COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001 KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL UDUPI TOWN UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI-576 103.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103.

4. TAHSILDAR BYNDOOR HOBLI, KUNDAPUR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103 BY ITS SECRETARY

5. SUDARSHAN SHETTY S/O MANJAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT AARMAKKI SHIROOR VILLAGE, BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 103.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R4, SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20TH JANUARY, 2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY IN PROCEEDING AS PER ANNEXURE-M THEREBY REJECT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE R-5 HEREIN.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.11.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CAV ORDER

1. The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.01.2020 passed in CDIS:LND/SR/52/2019 by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.5 and cancelled the order passed by respondent No.4-Tahsildar in Order No.HST(94C)SR.989/17-18 dated 09.10.2017, so also the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by respondent No.3 -

Assistant Commissioner.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he hails from an economically weaker background and he is an agriculturist cultivating 4 acres 31 cents of land in Yedthare Village, Byndoor Taluk, which was granted to him under the provisions of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for brevity "KLG Rules"). Since he had no place of his own to house his family, he encroached upon a Government land in Sy.No.375/B2 of Byndoor Village, Kundapuru Taluk, Udupi District (for brevity "subject land") and had initially built a hut with thatched roofing. Later, he rebuilt his house with concrete roofing. Eventually, he filed Form-3A under Rule 108(q) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for brevity "KLR Rules") on 22.08.2014 seeking regularization of his holding of subject land.

3. After an enquiry, respondent No.4 granted the subject land vide order of grant dated 20.09.2017. Thereafter, on

09.10.2017 hakku pathra was also issued by the Department of Revenue.

4. Respondent No.5 - Sudarshan Shetty claiming to be a distant relative of the petitioner questioned the aforementioned 'order of grant' before the Assistant Commissioner by way of appeal under Sections 49 and 25 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity "KLR Act") contending that the subject land was part of 'Kumki land' to the 'Kadim warg land'. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the said appeal filed by Sudarshan Shetty vide order dated 16.09.2019. Against the said order, Sudarshan Shetty filed an appeal under Section 50 of the KLR Act before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be allowed by setting aside the grant order made by the Tahsildar and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri. Ajith A. Shetty., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. K. Prasanna Shetty., learned counsel for respondent No.5.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has erred