Authorities cannot reallocate land already validly granted to an individual for public purposes.

The petitioner relied on an Official Memorandum dated 11 September 1978, under which land in Survey No. 106, Dasanapura Village, was granted to him and seven others.

A grant certificate was issued and his name was entered in the revenue records in M.R. No. 9/82-83

The authorities later questioned the petitioner’s grant, issued an endorsement dated 12 June 2024, and passed an Official Memorandum dated 9 May 2024 reserving the land for a Government Higher Primary School, Anganwadi and playground

The petitioner challenged those actions in two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227. The State defended the authorities’ actions; a private respondent disputed the grant and asserted an overlap with her land, noting that related civil suits were pending

1. Whether the Tahsildar’s endorsement questioning the petitioner’s grant and affecting his revenue entries should be set aside, given the authorities’ prior treatment of grants made under the same Official Memorandum

2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner could reserve the land for public purposes without first cancelling the petitioner’s grant in accordance with law

The Court considered Sections 136(3) and 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in relation to proceedings concerning the genuineness of grants and revenue records

It applied the principle that where grants made under the same Official Memorandum to similarly situated grantees had been accepted as genuine, the authorities could not, on the record before the Court, treat the petitioner’s grant as invalid. The Court further held that the authorities could not allot the same land for a public purpose while the grant in the petitioner’s favour remained uncancelled in accordance with law

The Court noted that the petitioner’s grant arose from the same 1978 Official Memorandum as the grants to Bhagyamma and Jayamma. Proceedings challenging those grantees’ grants had been resolved in their favour: Bhagyamma’s grant was upheld, and proceedings concerning Jayamma’s grant were dropped

In those circumstances, the Court found the authorities’ contrary treatment of the petitioner’s grant incorrect and set aside the Tahsildar’s endorsement. It also concluded that the Deputy Commissioner could not reserve the granted land for public facilities without lawfully cancelling the grant, while leaving the State free to identify alternative land

It directed the Tahsildar to enter the petitioner’s name in the revenue records for the subject land within two months of receiving the order

The parties were left to pursue their respective rights in the pending civil suits, O.S. Nos. 262/2024 and 608/2024