##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4627 WP No. 113397 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 113397 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VEERAMMA W/O SHANTAYYA BHUSNOORMATH,

AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,

R/O: AGALKERA, TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA.S.HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 231.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL,

DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.

Digitally signed b P y REMCHANDRA 3. THE TAHSILDAR, M R

L C o O c U at R io T n O : F HIGH KOPPAL TALUK, KOPPAL, KARNATAKA DIST: KOPPAL-583 231.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1-R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS

UNDER:

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4627 WP No. 113397 of 2019

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Mrutyunjay S.Hallikeri., counsel for the petitioner and

Smt. Mala B.Bhute., AGA for respondents 1 to 3-State have

appeared in person.

2. The Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Issue Writ, Order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 15.09.2017 passed in Appeal No.180/2006 by the Hon'ble karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru Vide Annexure-J, and consequently quash the order dated 01.12.2005 bearing Case No.Kandaya/appeal/11/12/13/2004-05 passed by respondent No.1 Vide Annexure-H, in so far as grant made in favour of petitioner & order bearing No.Rev:LND:120:2002-03 dated 03.09.2004 passed by respondent No.2 Vide Annexure-G, in so far as grant made in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice and

equity.

2. Pass any such other order or direction that may be deemed fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. The brief facts leading to the case are that the

Revenue Inspector, after conducting a mandatory inquiry, submitted a report holding that the petitioner was eligible for a grant of land, which she had been cultivating for more than 20 years. Based on the said report, the Tahsildar, Koppal Taluk and District, by order dated 30.03.1999, granted the land in favour of

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4627 WP No. 113397 of 2019

HC-KAR

the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid the requisite

amount and her name was duly entered in the revenue records.

After a lapse of nearly four years, the Assistant

Commissioner, acting on a complaint made by a third party, initiated proceedings and cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, which came to be dismissed by order dated 01.12.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.180/2006, which also came to be dismissed by order dated

15.09.2017. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Rule

25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, only the authority that has granted the land is competent to cancel the same. It is submitted that in the present case, the grant having been made by the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to cancel the grant. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to

be set aside.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4627 WP No. 113397 of 2019

HC-KAR

5. Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate

seeks to justify the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of

the writ petition.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on

record.

7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the

Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to cancel the grant of

land made by the Tahsildar.

Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969,

mandates that the power to cancel a grant and resume land resides with the