IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT PETITION NO. 58157 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. ABDUL RAZAK

S/O AHAMAD BEARY

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURIST

R/AT IRVATTHURU PADAVU HOUSE,

IRVATTHURU VILLAGE

BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASANNA V.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,

DEPT. OF REVENUE,

Digitally signed M.S. BUILDING,

by

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

SHARADAVANI

B BENGALURU - 560 001.

Location: High

Court of

Karnataka 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALORE - 575 001.

3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION

OF UN-AUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF THE

GOVT. LANDS, BANTWAL TALUK,

D.K. DISTRICT,

BY ITS SECRETARY/TAHSILDAR - 574 219.

4. SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE

REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT

D.K.Z.P. HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, MOODUPADUKODY, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 219.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2018 IN APPEAL NO.1156/2012 (REVENUE) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the Order dated 30.11.2018 in (Revenue) Appeal No.1156/2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity 'KAT') as per Annexure-A and also to quash the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-B.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of land measuring 72 cents in Sy.No.31/1C1 of Moodupadukodi Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada (for brevity "Subject land"). Accordingly, he filed an application before respondent No.3-the Regularization Committee for Regularization of his unauthorised occupation in the year 1991. The Committee after considering the claim of the petitioner and also conducting an enquiry passed an order dated 29.08.1994 by granting 72 cents in Sy.No.31/1C1. In pursuance of the said grant, the petitioner remitted the premium and Saguvali chit was issued on 18.10.1984. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner mutated in all the revenue records and he has been continued in possession and enjoyment of the land.

3. Things stood thus, respondent No.4 has filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner- respondent No.2 challenging the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner on assessment of the documents placed by both the parties, cancelled the grant and ordered the Government to take possession of the subject land and to enter the name of the Government in the revenue records. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in (Revenue) Appeal No.1156/2012. However, the KAT has dismissed the appeal by affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner so also the learned AGA and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner without appreciating the documents placed and the contentions raised by the petitioner in a right perspective, passed the impugned order. According to him, the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner is possessing excess land as per the provisions of Section 77-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the KLR Act') is incorrect and the petitioner is a divided member of the larger family, independently cultivating the subject land. As such, the Deputy Commissioner erred in passing the impugned order by cancelling the grant. He also contended that the Deputy Commissioner has not properly conducted