Allowed

Yashvant Subbanna Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/106094/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash a government notification that mutated land records in favor of the government. The court held the notification violated natural justice as the landowner was not given notice or a hearing before the inspection and mutation under Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notification dated 29.10.2021 is quashed. The Tahashildar is directed to restore the petitioner's name and delete the government's name in the revenue records.

Yashvant Subbanna Khot Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 106094 OF 2024 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YASHVANT SUBBANNA KHOT, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KHOTNATTI-591230, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

MANJANNA E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DC OFFICE COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKODI SUB-DIVISION, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, CHIKKODI-591201.

¶17

THE TAHASHILDAR, ATHANI, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, ATHANI-591304.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶22

I. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.10.2021 BEARING NO. KAMSHA/KAMGRA/2E/02/2021-22 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO PETITIONER.

¶23

II. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY DELETING THE NAME OF GOVERNMENT IN LANDS BEARING SY.NO.633/A MEASURING 10 ACRE 6 GUNTAS AND SY.NO.633/B SITUATED AT KOKATANUR (KHOTANATTI) VILLAGE OF ATHANI TALUKA IN BELAGAVI DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND D-1.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶27

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash Annexure-A dated 29.10.2021 issued by respondent No.2.

¶28

It is the case of petitioner that he is the owner and in possession of lands bearing Sy.No.633/A measuring 6 acre, 38 guntas and Sy.No.633/B measuring 6 acre 14 guntas situated at Kokatanur (Khotanatti) village of Athani

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶30

Taluka in Belagavi District. Petitioner contends that petition properties are petitioner’s ancestral properties. Name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records from 20.01.1964 since then he is cultivating the said lands. The RTC extracts depict his name in the mutation entry i.e., ME No.5573. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.2 conducted a spot inspection and submitted report acting under Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. However, while doing so the petitioner was not notified neither he was heard before filing such report or conducting such inspection. Accordingly, the impugned notification came to be issued behind back of the petitioner. Thereafter, a notification came to be displayed in the office of Tahashildar dated 29.10.2021 inviting objections from the public and directed respondent No.4 to mutate the name of Government of Karnataka in respect of lands mentioned in the said impugned notification.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶32

It is the contention of learned counsel that the said direction to respondents to mutate the name of Government of Karnataka is without following due process of law and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. Thereafter, name of Government of Karnataka is mutated in respect of petition properties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, whereby no opportunity was provided, no hearing was given and without inviting objections, the name of Government of Karnataka came to be mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the same is violative of principles of natural justice without following due process of law. Hence, the present petition.

¶33

Learned counsel further contends that in similarly

¶34

placed case, very same impugned notification came to be quashed in Writ Petition No.101183/2022.

¶35

Per Contra, the learned AGA contends that notification is in conformity with Rule 2(iii-b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that in the earlier round of litigation

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶37

the similar notification came to be quashed reserving liberty to the respondent authorities. Same is placed on record.

¶38

It is necessary to see in Rule 2(iii-b) of the

¶39

Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974:

¶40

“Unrecorded habitation” means Lambani Tanda, Gollarahatti, Vaddarahatti, Kurubarahatti, Nayakarahatti, Majare Grama, Haadi, Doddi, Palya Camp, Colony or any other such group of unrecorded habitations where an agricultural labourer is ordinarily residing on dwelling house on the land not belonging to him, notified as such in the Official Gazette specifying boundaries and survey numbers by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38-A of the Act falling within the jurisdiction of a village.”

¶41

In the instant case, no such opportunity of notice,

¶42

hearing or inviting of objections has been conducted or provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned notification and change of entry in the name of Government of Karnataka. Therefore, the impugned

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶44

notification issued is contrary to Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 9(b) of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Petition is allowed.

¶47

The impugned notification dated 29.10.2021 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.

¶48

The Tahashildar concerned shall restore the name of petitioner by deleting the name of Government in the revenue records in respect of petition property i.e., Sy.No.633/A, measuring 06 acre, 38 guntas and Sy.No.633/B, measuring 06 acre, 14 guntas situated at Kokatanur (Khotanatti) village of Athani taluka in Belagavi District within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take steps for issuing notification under

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14985 WP No. 106094 of 2024

¶52

Section 38-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

¶53

after duly notifying the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶54

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Yashvant Subbanna Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashvant Subbanna Khot v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M.Ansar Baig Vs Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Sri Ramesh B.H.T. S/O Basavarajappa Vs Occupier

Doddamardansab Mohamadhaneefsab Nadaf Since Deceased by Lrs Kasimsab S/O Doddamardansab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarvodaya Social Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Greenwood Internatinoal English Medium Vs State of Karnataka

State Rti and Social Activists Forum Alias Karnataka Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar