1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

WRIT PETITION No.49566/2018 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

MR RANJITH

S/O BABU POOJARI

AGED MAJOR, 48 YEARS,

R/AT KAUDADI HOUSE,

AJJIBETTU VILLAGE,

KORAGATTE POST,

BANTWAL TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA 574324

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI RANJITH K S, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560001.

2. MR. BABY GOWDA

S/O RAMA GOWDA

AGED MAJOR

R/AT KULAIDADDA HOUSE,

KORAGATTE POST,

BANTWAL TALUK,

DAKSHINA KANNADA-574324

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DAKSHINA KANNADA

MANGALORE-575001

2

4. THE AKRAMA SAKRAMA COMMITTEE

BANTWAL TALUK,

REPRESENTED BY ITS

SECRETARY/TAHSILDAR

BANTWAL TALUK,

BANTWAL-574219.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1, 3 AND 4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

DTD 27.11.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL 845/2006 ON THE FILE OF

KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A

ETC.

THIS WP COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.1, 3 and 4.

2.

The

petitioner

is

before

this

Court

being

aggrieved by the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal

dated

27.11.2015

rendered

in

Appeal

No.845/2006,

whereby the Appellate Tribunal was pleased to uphold the

proceedings

of

the

Deputy

Commissioner,

Dakshina

3

Kannada, Mangaluru, passed in CDis.RAP-3/04-05 dated

29.05.2006, whereby the Deputy Commissioner on an

appeal by respondent No.2 herein have been pleased to

cancel the grant made by the Akrama Sakrama Committee

constituted under Rule 108 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Rules, 1966, regularizing the unauthorized holding of

government land under the provisions of Section 94-A of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

3.

The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal after perusing

the records have been pleased to uphold the order of the

Deputy Commissioner that there is violation of the

provisions of the Act, more particularly, first proviso to

sub-section (4) of Section 94-A, which provides that the

family of the applicant shall not hold lands in excess of 2

hectares of ‘D’ Class or its equivalent thereto.

4.

On perusal of records, the Appellate Tribunal has

found that the father of the appellant was holding 16.22

acres of ‘D’ warga land in Sy.No.47/1, 47/2, 51/10 and

113/1 in Ajjibettu Village, Koragatte Post, Bantwal Taluk,

4

Dakshina

Kannada

District

and

hence,

upheld

the

cancellation of regularization of land measuring 4.80 acres

in Sy.No.82 of the same village. The Appellate Tribunal has

further found that the very application is fraudulent as the

applicant in the application filed under Form No.53 has

stated his age as 20 years and was claiming to have been

carrying on agricultural operation for the last 15 years.

5.

Neither the learned counsel nor the material on

record, rebut or contradict the findings of the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal. If the age or statement that the

petitioner/applicant had been carrying on agricultural

operations for 15 years, then he has been doing agricultural

work even as a toddler. On such short ground alone, the

petition requires to be rejected.

6.

Be that as it may. The petitioner is unable to

demonstrate as to how he is entitled to grant of land or

disprove the holdings ascribed to his father. In that view of

the matter, this Court does not find any good ground

5

warranting further consideration of the petition in the hands

of this Court.

The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly

rejected.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

dn/-

C