Suppression of material facts and unsupported fraud allegations warrant dismissal of a writ petition with costs.

The petitioner, claiming to be Joint Secretary of the Karnataka Dalit Sangharsha Samithi, complained to the Assistant Commissioner on 21 January 2021 that a land grant in favour of Lakshmayya had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.

Revenue officials reportedly recommended cancellation, but the Assistant Commissioner found no infirmity in the grant by order dated 26 March 2025.

The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, noting, among other matters, suits brought against the petitioner by the grantee’s family.

The petitioner sought certiorari to quash that order and a direction for action under Section 108(k) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order dismissing the appeal was liable to be quashed for error or perversity.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have his complaint acted upon under Section 108(k) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The petitioner invoked Section 108(k) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as the basis for seeking action concerning the grant, but the Court did not interpret or apply that provision substantively.

The Court’s reasoning rested on the need to provide material particulars when alleging fraud, the significance of disclosing material facts in writ proceedings, and whether the challenged administrative orders disclosed error or perversity.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s complaint was made more than two decades after the grant and did not specify how the grantee had committed fraud.

It also found that the petitioner had suppressed the suits filed against him and an interim order operating against him.

The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had considered the complaint and the available records and had concurrently found the grant valid; the Court saw no error or perversity warranting interference.

It further considered the suppression of material facts sufficient to justify dismissal with costs.

The petitioner was directed to pay costs of ₹25,000 to the High Court Legal Services Committee within eight weeks; failing payment, the jurisdictional Tahsildar was directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.