Sri N J Rangappa v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1570 OF 2025 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.1433 OF 2026 (KLR-LG)

IN CCC No.1570/2025: BETWEEN:

SRI. N J RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE JAVARAIAH R/AT NEARALIGE VILLAGE AND POST JAWAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 125 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR Ms. SAMEEKSHA T R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT NO.1

¶2SMT. MEENA NAGARAJ C N DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMGALURU – 577 101

¶3SRI. SUDARSHAN D K ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKMAGALURU – 577 101

¶4SMT. RESHMA K S TAHSILDAR CHIKMAGALURU TALUK CHIKKMAGALURU – 577 101 …ACCUSED (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO HOLD THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE OF CONTEMPT PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 AND PUNISH THEM AS PER LAW AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN WA NO.1433/2026 BETWEEN:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDIING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶2THE TAHSILDAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 101 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA) AND:

¶1MR. N J RANGAPPA S/O LATE JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NERALIGE VILLAGE AND POST, JAWAGAL HOBALI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 125

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101

¶4THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU – 577 101 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRUTHVIRAJ S., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL; b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.18389 OF 2025 (KLR-LG) AND ETC

THIS CCC AND WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 29.08.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No.18389 of 2025 filed by the respondent/petitioner.

¶2Heard Mr.M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State/Appellant and Mr.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.Sameeksha T.R., for the respondent/petitioner.

¶3The petitioner's father Sri.Late Javaraiah submitted an application seeking grant of 9 acres of land in Survey No.366 of Sugudavani Village, Chikkamagalur Taluk for coffee cultivation.

¶4The said application was considered and the Deputy Commissioner, the competent authority under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1969') issued a Grant Order on 30.09.1982. The Assistant Conservator of Forest vide his Report dated

10.03.1988, submitted that the land sought by the applicant was situated adjacent to the Kage Mane Girimishala Forest Area, which was near the D-line boundary, consisted of dense forest, and therefore, he requested that Darkhast grant order should be cancelled.

¶5On this report submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, the Deputy Commissioner called for a report from the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar submitted his

report dated 07.05.1988, supporting the report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Chikkamagaluru.

¶6On the basis of the reports submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest and the Tahsildar concerned, a show cause notice dated 08.06.1988 was issued to the petitioner's father late Javaraiah, as well as Guruswamy, who was also granted 5 acres of land in the survey No.366 of Sugudavani Village, Jagar Hobli, Chikkamagalur Taluk, for coffee plantation. The show cause notice dated 08.06.1988 issued to late Javaraiah and Guruswamy another grantee could not be served as they were not residing in the village where the lands granted is situated and their whereabouts were not known, as they were not the residents of the said village, though the grant order was issued in their favour on the ground that they were residents of the Sugudavani village. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, vide an order dated

27.08.1988, cancelled the grant made in the favour of late

Javaraiah and Guruswamy of 14 acres of land in survey No.366 of Sugudavani village.

¶7It may be noted that the Grant Order was of the year 1984 i.e., precisely dated 30.09.1984, but no Saguvali chit was issued in favour of the petitioner's father or Guruswamy. The petitioner's father had died in the year 2007. During his lifetime, he did not take any steps to challenge the cancelation order dated 27.08.1988, passed by the Deputy Commissioner nor he took any steps to get Saguvali Chit issued.

¶8Ten years after the death of the petitioner's father i.e., Javaraiah, the petitioner and Guruswamy moved this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.11067-11068 of 2017, seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner Chikkamagaluru District to consider the representation given by them for mutating the revenue records and entering the names of the petitioner and Guruswamy, having regard to the grant made in their favour way back in the year 1984. The said writ petitions were disposed off

on 19.09.2019, directing the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar concerned to consider the representations given by the petitioner and Guruswamy, within an outer limit of three months. However, orders were passed on the said representations. The respondents herein and Guruswamy approached this Court again in W.P.No.1388/2021.

¶9The learned Additional Government Advocate who had categorically taken the stand before the writ court that the request for issue of Saguvali Chit was rejected on the ground that the land granted to them was a forest land. The writ court vide order dated 19.03.2021 directed the petitioners to make the Forest Department and the Officials concerned parties / respondents in the writ petition.

¶10During the pendency of the said Writ Petition No.1388/2021, the order of the cancellation of grant was brought on record by the State and therefore, the said writ

petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the grants.

¶11Only the respondent/petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.18389/2025 and the other grantee Mr.Guruswamy had not challenged the cancellation order, cancelling the grant in respect of 5 acres of land in his favour. At no point of time, either the petitioner's father name Javaraiah or the petitioner's name was mutated in the Revenue records. All through, it was the Government which was shown in the Revenue Records as the owner of the land. Since 1984 to 2017 the petitioner's father and the petitioner did not take any effective steps in respect of the grant made in their favour on 30.09.1984.

¶12The grant was issued in favour of the petitioner's father in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 4 of the Rules 1969. The Rule 25 of the said Rules empower the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the grant of land made in favour of a person and resume the land, if

the grant has been obtained by false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to the Rules. Rule 25 of the Rules 1969 reads as under: "25. Cancellation of grant :- 5[(1)] Any grant of land made under these rules shall be liable to be cancelled and the land resumed by the authority which granted it, where the grant has been obtained by making false or fraudulent representations or is contrary to these rules:

Provided that no such cancellation shall be made without giving the grantee an opportunity of being heard.

1[(2) Where any violation of the condition of grant or lease of land comes or is brought to the notice of a Revenue Officer, such officer shall forthwith report the violation to the officer competent to cancel the grant or lease as the case may be. The competent officer shall after giving the grantee or lessee an opportunity to be heard cancel the grant and resume the land to the Government free from all encumbrances.]"

¶13As per the Report of the Assistant Conservator of Forest and the Tahsildar, the land in question is situated in the dense forest area, and it appears that the petitioner is not the resident of the village, where the land is situated. On due observation of the procedure as prescribed under Section 25 of the Rules 1969 i.e.,

issuance of the show cause notice, etc., the land grant had been cancelled. The order passed in the year 1988 cancelling the grant came to be challenged in the year 2025 by the petitioner.

¶14We are therefore of the view that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground of inordinate delay and latches. We also do not see that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner suffers from any illegality or perversity, which requires an interference by this Court in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we allow the writ appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment dated

29.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the setting aside of the impugned judgment, the contempt petition does not survive for consideration and stand dismissed.

¶15All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (D K SINGH)

JUDGE

Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

JJ / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7