2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441111
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT AND GEETHA K.B.
REPRESNTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU 560001 – Appellant
Versus
K SHIVAPPA SON K DAMMURAPPA AGE 69 YERAS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O SULTHANPURA YARABANHALLI VILLAGE – Respondent
WA 100032/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO.100032 OF 2023 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
SANDUR TALUK, SANDUR, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI SUB-DIVISION,
BALLARI, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI-583101.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SMT. KIRTHI LATHA, HCGP)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR 1. K. SHIVAPPA S/O K. DAMMURAPPA,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
D CH ig A it N al D ly R s A ig S n H e E d K b A y R R/O SULTHANPURA (YARABANAHALLI) VILLAGE,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT
O DH F A K R A W RN AD AT B A E K N A CH TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583229.
2. K. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O K. SHIVAPPA
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SULTHANPURA (YARABANAHALLI) VILLAGE,
TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583229.
3. KURUBARA NNINGAMMA W/O HUCHAPPA
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O SULTHANPURA (YARABANAHALLI) VILLAGE,
TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583229.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
NOTICE TO R1-SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NOS.62311-62313/2009 DATED
04.08.2021 & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
This appeal by the State Government by Revenue Authorities filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against learned Single Judge’s order dated 4.8.2021 passed in WP Nos.62311-313 of 2009, whereunder the respondents’ challenge to Annexure-J, order of cancellation of grant dated 30.10.2008, is quashed, with a direction to consider the representation dated
2.8.2007.
2. Heard the learned AAG Sri. Gangadhar J.M. along with learned HCGP Smt. Kirthilatha Patil for the appellants/State and learned counsel Sri. B. Chidanand for respondents No.2 and 3. Perused the writ appeal papers.
3. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience. The appellants were the respondents and the respondents were the petitioners before the learned Single Judge.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were granted different extent of land in Sy.No.3 & 3(P) situated in Yarabanahalli, Sandur Taluk, on 30.10.2002 and on 7.1.2004. The petitioners are said to have paid the premium amount to the Government and thereafter, they were issued with Form-7 in terms of Rule 29 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, For short, ‘Rules 1969’
5. The 3rd respondent Assistant Commissioner is said to have issued show cause notice dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure-G) to the petitioners, calling upon the petitioners to explain as to why their grant shall not be cancelled in exercise of power under Rule 25 of Rules, 1969. The petitioners said to have submitted explanations on 13.12.2017. Thereafter under Annexure-‘J’ dated 30.10.2008, the third respondent Assistant Commissioner in exercise of power under Rule 25 of Rules, 1969 cancelled the grant of land of the petitioners. Questioning the said cancellation of grant, the petitioners were before this Court. The learned single judge under impugned order quashed the order of cancellation mainly on the ground that under Rule 25 of Rules, 1969, the proceedings initiated by Assistant Commissioner is absolutely without jurisdiction. Questioning the said order of the learned Single Judge, the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ appeal.
6. Learned A.A.G. Sri Gangadhar J.M. would contend that the application of the petitioners for grant of land was under Rule 108 of Karnatka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and t