Farmer’s 3-Acre-7-Gunta Grant Stands After Karnataka HC Rejects State Appeal Over Cancellation Without A Hearing

The petitioner’s unauthorised cultivation of 3 acres and 7 guntas in Survey No. 146/P-35 was regularised in 2007.

Following earlier writ proceedings, a saguvali chit was issued, the petitioner’s name was entered in the revenue records, and phodi and durasthi were completed.

In 2016, the Assistant Commissioner set aside the regularisation and grant, citing insufficient gomala land, unavailable records, and the land’s alleged location within 18 km of BBMP’s outer boundary.

The petitioner successfully challenged that order before a Single Judge on 9 March 2022.

The State filed this appeal 577 days late.

During its pendency, the petitioner died on 3 July 2023; the State sought to implead his legal heirs in 2026, without applying to condone the delay or set aside abatement.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown; the Court found no satisfactory grounds for condoning the 577-day delay.

An application to bring a deceased party’s legal representatives on record, made after substantial delay, requires the necessary applications for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement; the State had filed neither.

Rule 108-D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, was invoked in the proceedings that led to the Assistant Commissioner’s order.

The State’s explanation—that the file was placed before higher authorities and a decision was later made to appeal—did not satisfactorily account for the 577-day delay, so the Court rejected the application under Section 5.

The impleadment application was filed nearly three years after the petitioner’s death and without applications to condone the delay or set aside abatement; the Court therefore rejected it.

On the merits, the State produced no material establishing that, in 2007, the land fell within 18 km of BBMP’s outer boundary.

The authorities had previously issued the saguvali chit, mutated the revenue records, and completed phodi and durasthi without raising that objection.

The Assistant Commissioner’s order was also made without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and did not refer to the alleged BBMP-boundary issue.

It found no error in the Single Judge’s decision on the merits and dismissed the writ appeal, leaving intact the order setting aside the Assistant Commissioner’s 2016 order.