ORDER : RAJESH RAI K., J. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "the KAT") dated 23.08.2019 at Annexure-'A'. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that land measuring 1 acre 4 cents in Sy.No.202-1A4 was granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.53024/2019, the land measuring 1 acre 50 cents in Sy.No.193/3D was granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.53033/2019, the land measuring 35 cents in Sy.No.203/1C was granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.53037/2019, the land measuring 1 acre 40 cents in Sy.No.202-1A2 was granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.53039/2019 and the land measuring 1 acre 10 cents in Sy.No.202/1A3 was granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.53041/2019. All these lands are situated at Bantwal Muda Village, Bantwal Taluk and were granted to the petitioners by the Akrama-Sakrama Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation, Bantwal Taluk. Accordingly, the petitioners were put in possession of their respective lands. 3. Things stood thus, the Assistant Commissioner based on the recommendation of the Tahsildar, in a suo moto proceedings, cancelled the grants made in favour of the petitioners under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for brevity "the KLR Rules") vide impugned orders. The said orders were questioned by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner has also rejected the appeals filed by the petitioners by affirming the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The said orders were questioned by the petitioners before the KAT and the KAT has also dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners by affirming the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri S. Rajashekar appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., appearing for the respondents in all the writ petitions. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the KAT had erred while cancelling the grants made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the grants made in favour of the petitioners are not sustainable since the Regularization Committee passed an order on 04.11.2006 and 24.11.2006 i.e., after amendment and insertion of Rule 108-I(2) of the KLR Rules. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners had filed applications for grant of their respective subject lands on the respective dates as mentioned below: 6. However, the authorities have not considered the applications for a period more than seven years without any fault of the petitioners. Nevertheless, the amendment of KLR Rules in respect of Rule 108-I(2) has no retrospective effect and if an application is filed before insertion of said Rule, the said application has to be considered from the date of filing of application and not subsequently after the provision came into force. In order to buttress his arguments, he relied on the judgment in the case of MAHADEV AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS - ILR 2016 KAR 3509 and prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the orders by cancelling the grants on the ground that the subject lands were granted to the petitioners in the year 2006 i.e., after amendment and insertion of Rule 108-I(2) of KLR Rules as amended on 23.04.2005. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents made available before me. 9. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the petitioners filed applications in Form No.50 for regularization of the subject lands in the years 1991 and 1999. However, those applications were considered in the year 2006 by the Regularization Committee and granted the subject lands in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, they were put in possession of subject lands. Later, in the year 2012, by virtue of recommendation of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner in suo moto proceedings cancelled the grants made in favour of the petitioners by invoking Rule 108K of the KLR Rules. 10. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MAHADEV cited supra, in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 has held as under:- "12. 10. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MAHADEV cited supra, in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 has held as under:- "12. The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the application for the grant of the land has to be examined with reference to the law which was in force at the time of making the application or a per the law, which is amended subsequent to the filing of the application? 13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. Unless there are words in the statue sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. In the absence of anything in the enactment to show that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot take away or impair a right acquired under the existing laws or attach a new disability. 14. In the instant case admittedly the application for the grant of the land was made in 1991. In 1991, there was no prohibition in granting the land which lied within a radius of 5 kms. from the periphery of Shivamogga City. The prohibition or embargo is introduced subsequently. Such a question is examined by this Court in its decision in the case of Rama Naik Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others reported in ( 2007 (2) KCCR 1346 ):ILR 2007 Kar 1521, Paragraph No.5 of the said decision is extracted herein below: "5. I do see some force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If the land has been regularized in favour of the petitioner; prior to declaring Gangavati Town as City Municipality and if an amendment has been brought into the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, subsequent to the order of regularization for issuance of saguvali chit, the Tahsildar is not expected to apply the subsequent development. What is required to be considered is whether the Committee had power to regularize it in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner." 11. What is required to be considered is whether the Committee had power to regularize it in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act on the date of consideration of the application of the petitioner." 11. Though the law laid down in the above judgment has been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.894/2022 dated 23.09.2024, the Division Bench affirmed the said ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 12. Subsequently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court affirmed the said view in W.P.No.2411/2022 observing that "the application for regularization cannot be rejected on the ground that the land comes within the geographical jurisdiction of City/BBMP and the same shall be considered as on the date of the applications made by the petitioners". 13. The provision under Rule 108-I(2) of KLR Rules came into effect on 25.04.2005. No doubt the grant made in favour of the petitioners is after the said Rule came into force. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners there is no fault on the part of the petitioners and that it is the Regularization Committee which has considered their applications belatedly in the year 2006 though the applications had been filed in the years 1991 and 1999. Further, it is not in dispute that as on the date of filing of the applications, the locality of the subject lands were not within the limits of municipality and the provision under Rule 108-I(2) of the KLR Rules was not in force. As such, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to consider these aspects of the matter. The KAT also dismissed the appeal without verifying these aspects. 14. In view of the above and by applying the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra to the facts and circumstances of these cases, it is clear that the authorities have failed to consider the law in a right perspective. Hence, interference in the impugned orders is called for and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned orders passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 23.08.2019 at Annexure-'A' are hereby quashed. (iii) Consequently, the grant made in favour of the petitioners dated 04.11.2006 in W.P.No.53024/2019, W.P.No.53033/2019 and W.P.No.53041/2019, dated 24.11.2006 in W.P.No.53037/2019, W.P.No.53030/2019 are restored.