Karnataka HC Restores Woman’s Land Grant, Says Her Husband’s Separate Landholding Cannot Be Counted Against Her

The petitioner challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order cancelling a grant of approximately 4 acres 30 guntas of land made in her favour in 1994.

The cancellation followed a Tahasildar’s report that, when the petitioner’s and her husband’s holdings were considered together, they exceeded the 2-hectare limit for dry land; the husband’s separate grant was made in 2007.

The petitioner’s challenge before the Deputy Commissioner was rejected by endorsement on the ground that no revision lay, after which she filed this writ petition.

Section 94-A(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and its proviso limit the land granted, together with land already held by the applicant, to two hectares of ‘D’ class land or its equivalent; Rule 108-F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, sets out individual eligibility conditions for grant.

The court relied on the principle that, absent a statutory provision requiring aggregation, the holdings of other family members cannot be counted against an individual applicant, and that more than one eligible member of a family may receive a grant.

It also relied on Rule 108-K, as discussed in the cited precedent, under which cancellation is permitted on specified grounds including false or fraudulent representation or a grant contrary to the Rules.

Further, an authority must act within a reasonable period even where the statute prescribes no limitation period.

The court found that the cancellation rested on combining the petitioner’s holding with her husband’s separate holding, although the governing provisions did not prescribe family or joint-family aggregation for the two-hectare limit.

The cited decisions, including the Division Bench’s approval of the relevant principle, therefore covered the dispute.

The court also noted the precedent’s holding that substantial delay in cancelling a grant may render the cancellation unsustainable.

On that basis, it held that the Assistant Commissioner’s cancellation order was erroneous.

It set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order cancelling the grant at Annexure-D and made no order as to costs.