Writ interference is unwarranted where record evidence supports cancellation of an unsubstantiated land grant.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order cancelling a 1994 grant of 2 acres 10 guntas in Survey No. 5, Solur Village, and directing the Tahsildar to resume the land to the Government.

She relied on the grant memorandum, payment of the assessed amount, a grant certificate, and subsequent mutation entries.

Respondents 8–15 disputed her claim and maintained that her Form No. 50 application concerned land in Vishwanathapura Village, not Solur Village.

On examining the original records, the High Court found discrepancies between the application, grant documents, sketches, and the extent of land said to have been granted to the petitioner’s family.

The petitioner also relied on earlier civil proceedings and alleged that the Deputy Commissioner had denied her a fair opportunity.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order cancelling the petitioner’s grant and directing resumption of the land warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the petitioner established a reliable basis for her claim to the subject land, including that the grant related to the land in Solur Village

3. Whether the petitioner’s allegation that she was not afforded a fair opportunity justified setting aside the impugned order

The Court considered its supervisory and writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and held that interference was not warranted where the challenged administrative finding was supported by the evidence on record.

It relied on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716, in applying that approach to the evidentiary basis of the Deputy Commissioner’s conclusion.

The judgment does not identify a specific statutory provision governing the grant or its cancellation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s Form No. 50 application sought regularisation of 3 acres in Survey No. 5 of Vishwanathapura Village, whereas the grant memorandum relied on by her concerned 2 acres 10 guntas in Survey No. 5 of Solur Village.

It also noted that the grant memorandum referred to other legal representatives of Chikkamalappa and that adding the petitioner’s claimed extent to the other grants would exceed the stated total extent of 6 acres 13 guntas.

The Court considered the sketches inconsistent and found that the earlier civil suit did not concern the petitioner’s claimed land; it also noted that the injunction application in a later suit had been rejected and that decision had been affirmed.

In light of these records, the petitioner had not established her right to the subject land, and the Court rejected her natural-justice objection.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving in place the cancellation of the grant and the direction to resume the land to the Government.