SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O VENKATAYYA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 100368 OF 2018 (KLR-REG)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O VENKATAYYA,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCCP: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BANDI HARLAPUR, TQ: KOPPAL,
DT: KOPPAL.


…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:



1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL, DT: KOPPAL.

2. THE TASHILDAR,
KOPPAL, TQ AND DT: KOPPAL.



…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227



BHARATHI
H M
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OR CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.11.07 10:58:57
+0530

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DATED 22.10.2016
BEARING NO.KAM:BHUMI:7:2015-16-2414 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 RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


ORAL ORDER


1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the
Assistant Commissioner dated 22.10.2016 (Annexure-D),
by which, the grant of land made in her favour on
24.05.1994 has been cancelled.


2. The petitioner-Smt. Sharadamma is married to
Sri Venkatayya. They are residents of Basapur Village in
Koppal Taluk. It is the petitioner's case that lands to the
extent of 4 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.18/5 were being
cultivated unauthorizedly by her father and after his
lifetime, the petitioner continued such cultivation. As per
the applicable Rules, on 24.12.1994, a Saguvali Chit was
issued granting the said land in her favour. As noted
above, she married to Sri Venkatayya, a resident of the
same village. Sri. Venkatayya was granted 4 acres 38

guntas of land in Survey No.18/20 on 11.07.2007.


3. The Tahasildar submitted a report stating that
the petitioner and her husband jointly held lands to the

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


extent of 9 acres 28 guntas in Basapura Village and
requested the competent authority to cancel the grant in
favour of the petitioner since holding by both the
petitioner and her husband exceeds the limit of 2 hectares
of dry land which is maximum that can be granted by the
Tahasildar. It is on this report the notices were issued to
the petitioner and subsequently, the present impugned
order cancellation at Annexure-D was passed.


4. The petitioner challenged the order of the
Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner
who issued an endorsement at Annexure-E stating that no
revision before the Deputy Commissioner shall lie against
the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Writ
Petition.


5. I have heard Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for
respondents.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018



6. Sri Neelendra D. Gunde contends that the
holding of lands by husband and wife has to be considered
as holding by two different individuals and it cannot be
taken into reckoning as holding by one person for purpose
of ceiling. The Assistant Commissioner was clearly in error
in cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioner as
far back as in 1994 by the present impugned order which
was made in 2016. He says that the reason assigned by
the Assistant Commissioner that the Tahasildar could not
grant land in excess of 2 hectares of dry land is not
applicable to the present case because the grant in favour
of the petitioner-wife is entirely separate from the grant in
favour of husband which was made only in 2007.


7. Sri Gunde relies on the judgment of this Court
in Writ Petition Nos.32537-32540/2011 and connected
With Petition No.4337/2012 to bring home his point. In
the said judgment, this Court has held as under:
“2. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri P.Karunakar for the
petitioners submits that the land holdings of the family

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


cannot be taken into account while granting the land in
exercise of the power conferred by Section 94-A of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the said Act’ for
short). He read out Section 94-A(4) and the first
proviso thereto. They are extracted hereinbelow:
“94-A. Regularisation of certain cases
of unauthorised occupation by
constituting Committee, etc. - ………….
(4) Nothing in Section 94 shall prevent the
committee constituted under sub-section (1),
or additional Committee constituted under
sub-section 2-A but subject to such rules as
may be prescribed, if any, to grant to the
person liable to be evicted under that section
the land which he had unauthorisedly
occupied prior to the fourteenth day of April,
1990 (hereinafter referred to as the said date)
or any portion thereof, if he satisfies the
prescribed conditions (including the extent of
the land held and unauthorisedly occupied by
him) and makes within a period of six months
from the date of commencement of the
Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act,
1990 (hereinafter referred to as the
Amendment Act), an application for such
grant in such form along with such fees, as
may be prescribed and on payment of the
amount payable under sub-section (5):
Provided that the land so granted together
with the land already held by such person,
shall not exceed two hectares of ‘D’ class of
land or its equivalent thereto.”
3. Nextly, he read out the provisions contained in
Rule 108-F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,
1966 (‘the said Rules’ for short) to buttress his
submission that the petitioners meet the eligibility
criteria. The said provisions are extracted hereinbelow:
“108-F. Eligibility for Grant – No person
shall be eligible for grant of land under this
Chapter, unless –
(i) he has attained the age of eighteen
years; and
(ii) ………..

(iii) he is a permanent resident within the
limits of the Taluk in which the land is
situated or in the adjacent Taluk; and
(iv) he is a bona fide agriculturist cultivating
the land personally and is not prohibited

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


from holding or acquiring land under the
provisions of the Karnataka Land
reforms act, 1961; and
(v) he is in authorised occupation of land for
at least a continuous period of not less
than three years prior to the fourteenth
day of April, 1990:
Provided that in the case of persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, such period shall be not less than one
year.”
4. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on
this Court’s decision in the case of RAMACHANDRA
REDDY AND OTHERS vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT AND
OTHERS reported in 2002 (3) KCCR 2091 . Para 3 of
the said decision read out by him is as follows:
“3. On going through the records and
the provisions of law, I find that the view taken
by the Assistant Commissioner that the
individual grants made in favour of respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 is bad in law as they belong to same
family is an untenable view. Under Section 94A
any person who is in unauthorised cultivation of
the Government land on fulfillment of certain
eligibilities under Rule 108-F and other
provisions would be entitled to Regularisation
under the provisions of Land Revenue Act and
Rules. Under Rule 108-F there is no restriction
placed that the land shall not be granted to
more than one member in the same family. If
one satisfies the eligibility of the age criteria
and residence criteria if he is cultivating the
land for a period of 3 years prior to 9.10.1989
and not otherwise prohibited from holding or
acquiring the lands under the Land Reforms Act
is entitled to regularisation.”
5. Smt.M.C.Naghashree, the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondents submits that
the petitioners have created the artificial partition deed
only for the purposes of getting the lands granted. She
submits that the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and K.A.T. are fair and just requiring no
interference.
6. She further submits that the petitioners’ father is
granted the land in excess of 2 hectares of ‘D’ class
land. She submits that the petitioners’ father holds the
land measuring 9 acres and 18 cents.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


7. My perusal of the Assistant Commissioner’s
order reveals that it is more philosophical than legal.
The Assistant Commissioner observes that the cause of
social justice would be betrayed, if everybody’s
unauthorized occupation of the Government land is
regularized. He has observed that the economic status
of the applicant for the regularization of the
unauthorized occupation of the land has to be taken
into account.
8. Even when the anxiety of the Assistant
Commissioner to render social justice is praiseworthy,
I cannot uphold his order, as it does not withstand the
scrutiny of law. Rule 108 K of the said Rules
enumerates only three reasons for cancelling the
grant: (a) if the land-grant is obtained by making the
false representation (b) if it is obtained by making the
fraudulent representation (c) if the land-grant is
contrary to the said Rules. In the instant case, the
land-grant is not obtained by making false or
fraudulent representation; nor there is any violation of
the Rules.
9. The proviso to Section 94-A(4) to the said Act
states that the land granted together with the land
already held by such person shall not exceed two
hectares of ‘D’ Class land. The word ‘person’ is not
defined in the said Act. Rule 108F of the said Rules,
which deals with the eligiblility for the land grant,
states, inter alia, that no person shall be eligible for
the grant of the land unless he is not prohibited from
holding or acquiring the land under the provisions of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The word
‘person’ is not defined in the said Rules. It is also
interesting to notice that the word ‘person’ was defined
by Section 2A (24) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961. However, it was omitted from the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act by Act No.1/1974 with effect from
1.3.1974. What emerges from this position is that the
lands held by the other members of his family cannot
be taken into account for the purpose of computing the
two hectares of the ‘D’ class land while granting the
land.
10. This Court in the case of RAMACHANDRA
REDDY (supra) has expressed the considered view
that there is no restriction that the lands should not be
granted to more than one member in the same family.
Under Section 94-A of the said Act, any person who is
in unauthorised cultivation of the Government land, on

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


fulfillment of certain eligibility conditions under Rule
108-F of the said Rules, may be granted with the land.
11. My perusal of the order passed by the K.A.T.
reveals that the K.A.T. has upheld the Assistant
Commissioner’s order as the petitioner’s father
Mundappa Rai was holding the ‘D’ class lands of 9
acres 18 cents. The K.A.T. has not approved of the
land-grants, as they are made to the members of the
same family. Its reasoning runs contrary to the judicial
pronouncement in the case of RAMACHANDRA
REDDY (supra). There is no statutory prescription
that the land holdings of the family or joint family are
to be taken into account while giving effect to the
proviso to Section 94-A(4) of the said Act.
12. There is no doubt that Chapter XIII-A of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 is inserted with
the laudable object of granting the lands to the
landless persons. But neither in the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 nor in the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966 framed thereunder impose any restriction
that if the land holdings of the family or joint family
exceed particular extent, its members are not entitled
to the grant of the land either separately or
collectively. It is for the Legislature to take a call on
the issue and prescribe the necessary restrictions.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow these
petitions, quashing the impugned orders. Needless to
observe that the Assistant Commissioner has the
power to cancel the grant made in favour of the
petitioners, only if it is shown to him that the land-
grant is obtained by making the false or fraudulent
representation or if the land-grant is contrary to the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. No order as to
costs.”


8. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single
Judge has been approved by the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Appeal No.571/2022 in the following terms:
“6. The appellants' contention that the mother of
respondent No.1 and his family members were holding
11.43 acres of land as on the date of grant, and
therefore, he was not entitled for grant under Section
94A of the Act does not merit consideration in view of

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Chandrahas Rai & Others vs. The Assistant
Commissioner, Puttur & Another in W .P.Nos.32537-
32540/2011, wherein it is held that there is no

restriction that the lands should not be granted to more
than one member of the same family. Under Section
94A of the Act, any person who is in unauthorized
cultivation of the Government land, on fulfillment of
certain eligibility conditions under Rule 108F of the
Rules, may seek grant of such lands and would be
eligible for grant.“


9. The Division Bench has also taken note of the
aspect of delay in cancelling the grant. In paragraph No.8,
the Division Bench has pronounced on the aspect of delay
in cancelling the grant in the following terms :
“8. The learned Single Judge has also taken into
consideration that there was an inordinate delay on the
part of the authorities concerned in canceling the order
of grant. Undisputedly the grant order was passed on
29.06.1995 and the Assistant Commissioner has
cancelled the said grant by its order dated 31.07.2009.
Therefore, the order of cancellation has been passed
after a delay of more than 14 years from the date of
grant. It is trite law that any action under the statue
even where limitation is not prescribed, the authorities
are required to initiate action within a reasonable
period. Even on this ground, the orders impugned in
the writ petition would not be sustainable. Therefore,
we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge which calls for
interference by this Court. Accordingly, we decline to
entertain this writ appeal and the same is therefore
“
dismissed.


10. On an examination of the records of the case
and the judgments cited above, it is clear that dispute
involved in this case is fully covered by the aforesaid

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17712
WP No. 100368 of 2018


CNR: KAHC020004762018


judgments. The order of cancellation at Annexure-D is
therefore erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

Resultantly, the following order :
ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order of cancellation of the grant in favour of
the petitioner at Annexure-D is set aside.

No order as to costs.



Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE





NAA
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45