1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

WRIT PETITION No.5550/2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

SRI SHANKARAPPA

S/O RAMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

YALAVALLI,

MALAVALLI POST

SORABA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA-577429

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

M S BUILDING

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU-560001

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

SHIVAMOGGA-577201

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

SAGARA SUB-DIVISION

SAGARA

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401

4. TAHASILDAR

SORABA TALUK, SORABA

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429

2

5. HUVAPPA

S/O HOLEYAPPA

AGED MAJOR

6. MARUTHI

S/O GIRIYAPPA

AGED MAJOR

7. DHARMAPPA

S/O PUTTAPPA

AGED MAJOR

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 ARE

R/AT YALAVALLI VILLAGE

MAVALLI POST

SORABA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577429

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER

DTD.08.10.2020 PASSED IN R.MISC NO.5/2017-18 PASSED BY

THE

R-2

AND

CONSEQUENTLY

SET

ASIDE

THE

ORDER

DTD.8.9.2014 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN R.A.NO.12/2011-12 VIDE

ANNEXURE-A AND B ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY HEARING' THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.

It is submitted that the petitioner had made an

application for regularization of unauthorized occupation

and the same came to be considered and allowed by the

3

Akrama Sakrama Committee and that on an appeal, the

Assistant Commissioner, Sagara, was pleased to setaside

the order of the Committee and remanded the same for

fresh consideration. That thereafter, the appellants in

R.A.No.12/2011-12 preferred an appeal under Section

136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, questioning the

continuation of the mutation entries in favour of the

petitioner despite the reversal of the grant. The Assistant

Commissioner allowed the appeal and proceeded to pass

the following order:-

“// DzÉñÀ //

ªÉÄîä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÁUÀ±À: CAVÃPÀj¹zÉ. JA.Dgï £ÀA. 07/08-

09, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-01-09 £ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-06-2011

gÀAzÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¤ÃqÀÁzÀ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß

vÉgÀªÀÅUÉƽ¹zÉ. ¥ÀºÀuÉ PÁ®A £ÀA. 9 gÀ°è F »A¢£ÀAvÉ ‘¸ÀPÁðj

§AdgÀÄ’ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀºÀuÉ PÁ®A £ÀA. 11 gÀ°è £ÀA.

Jï.J£ï.r ¹Dgï 195/74-75, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-05-76 gÀ ¨sÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆj

DzÉñÀ gÀzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä vÀºÀ²ÃÁÝgï, ¸ÉÆgÀ§

EªÀjUÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.”

3.

The

same

was

questioned

in

revision

in

R.Misc.No.5/2017-18 by the petitioner before the Deputy

Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner was pleased to

4

uphold the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated

08.09.2014 whereby the Tahsildar was directed to enter the

status of the land as ‘Sarkari Banjaru’ in Column No.9 and

to enter the details of the order canceling the grant in

favour of the petitioner in Column No.11.

4.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order

is merely consequential to the order of the Assistant

Commissioner setting aside the order regularizing the

unauthorized occupation of the petitioner.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends

that

in

view

of

the

observations

of

the

Deputy

Commissioner regarding the grant in favour of third parties,

the authorities may endeavor to enter the name of the said

third parties referred to in the body of the order by the

Deputy Commissioner, more particularly, in paragraph

No.6.

6.

In

the

opinion

of

this

Court,

the

said

apprehension is without basis. The order of the Tahsildar is

5

categorical and the entries to be made in respective

columns

has

also

been

detailed

by

the

Assistant

Commissioner and the same has been upheld by the Deputy

Comm