IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT PETITION NO. 50871 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT ARTI KISHORE

W/O KISHORE KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT R RATHI DEVI

W/O LATE LAXMINARAYANA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/AT 'PANCHAJANAYA'

KADRI TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE-3

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by AND:

PANKAJA S

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KARNATAKA

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT-575 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT-575 001

3. THE TAHASILDAR

MANGALORE

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001

4. DISTRICT MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT MINORITIES WELFATER OFFICER, MOULANA AZAD BHAVAN, OLD KENT ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU,D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SIDDAPPA N.C, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19 by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, whereby respondent No.1 exercising powers under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity, "the KLR Act") removed the Kumki privilege of the property bearing Sy.No.8/45 of Malavooru village held by the respective holders including the petitioners, who were in possession of the same, by reserving 2.16 acres out of said survey number for public purpose i.e., to the Minority Department for construction of Haj Bhavan building.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.8/53, 8/52, 8/45 and 8/50 of Malavooru village. Out of these lands, land bearing Sy.No.8/45 accede to the Kumki privilege for the use of varga holders of the said area for better enjoyment and cultivation in their respective lands, including for securing green manure and also for grazing cattle.

3. Things stood thus, respondent No.3 forwarded a proposal to respondent No.2 to reserve 2.16 Acres of land in Sy No.8/45 for the purpose of construction of Haj Bhavan vide letter 22.10.2018. Respondent No.2, in turn, forwarded the same to respondent No.1 on 27.11.2018 for withdrawal of kumki privilege of petitioners and others in respect of 2.16 Acres in Sy No.8/45.

4. Based on the proposal of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioners on 28.12.2018 and to other persons who were holding kumki privilege over the subject land. The petitioners filed a detailed objection before respondent No.1 about their right, possession and the consequence of withdrawal of their kumki privilege and explained about the non-feasibility of the subject land for construction of Haj Bhavan as the said land was situated within the bank of Palguni river. Despite respondent No.1, without considering the objections of the petitioners and without duly serving notice to others, hastily passed the impugned order by withdrawing the kumki privilege of the petitioners and others over subject land vide Annexure-A.

5. Heard Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for respondent No.4.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, without considering the objections filed by the petitioners and without considering the vast improvement made by the petitione