Karnataka High Court
Smt Mumtajunnisa vs State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35060
WP No. 26706 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 26706 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUMTAJUNNISA,
D/O SRI RAZAKSAB,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2. SRI. TANZEER AHMED
S/O LATE ALIULLA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KOBARIPETE, HOSADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35060
WP No. 26706 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. TAHSILDAR
HOSADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 19.12.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER IN RP.NO.59/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN SO
FAR AS CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2021 PASSED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, IN
APPEAL NO.371/2020-21 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
Learned High Court Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the instance of the Tahsildar, Hosadurga Taluk, the Assistant Commissioner took up proceedings under Section 136(2) read with Section 49 of the Karnataka Land -3- NC: 2025:KHC:35060 WP No. 26706 of 2025 HC-KAR Revenue Act, 1964, to set aside the revenue entry made in the RTC in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are not in possession and they have not cultivated the lands in question. It is found from the report submitted by the Tahsildar that the petitioners claim that there was a grant made in favour of Smt.Mumtaj Unnisa D/o Sri.Razaksab in respect of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.86/28, New Sy.No.173 situated at Goravinakallu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk in terms of Order bearing No.UL/ND/CR/22/1980-81. Smt.Mumtaj Unnisa executed a registered gift deed in the name of her son Sri.Tanzeer Ahmed and from then on the revenue entries have been mutated in the name of Sri.Tanzeer Ahmed. However, information is placed before the Assistant Commissioner that the lands have not been cultivated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the one hand, it is stated that there is a grant in favour of Smt.Mumtaj Unnisa and on the other hand, it is stated that no records are available in respect of the grant. At -4- NC: 2025:KHC:35060 WP No. 26706 of 2025 HC-KAR any rate, it was not permissible for the Assistant Commissioner to take up the matter at the instance of the Tahsildar invoking Section 136 or Section 49. If it is the contention of the petitioners that there is a violation of the terms of the grant inasmuch as the lands have not been cultivated, then prior notice had to be issued to the grantee or his legal heirs to afford an opportunity to say why the grant should not be cancelled for violation of the terms of the grant. At any rate, such proceedings initiated under Section 136(2) of the Act, that too at the instance of the Tahsildar, cannot be maintained. The Deputy Commissioner has failed to notice these aspects of the matter and has also affirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
4. There is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If it is the contention of the Tahsildar that no such grant was made in favour of Smt.Mumtaz Unnisa, then the question would arise as to how and why the revenue entries were maintained in the -5- NC: 2025:KHC:35060 WP No. 26706 of 2025 HC-KAR name of the grantee for more than four decades. This Court has held in the case of Smt.Pyari Ma and others versus The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.22426/2021 dated 12.01.2022 that powers exercisable for cancellation of grant though not restricted by any period of limitation, nevertheless, such exercise shall be done within a reasonable time. On the other hand, if it is the contention of the Tahsildar that the lands though granted, have not been cultivated, then notice will have to be issued and proceedings will have to be initiated only in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed while setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures-G and H. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent/State to initiate proceedings only in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:35060 WP No. 26706 of 2025 HC-KAR Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK