Allowed

N. Viswanath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/23572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the reclassification of their land from 'A' kharab to 'B' kharab by the Tahsildar, alleging violation of natural justice due to lack of enquiry and notice. The High Court held the reclassification illegal and quashed it, directing restoration of the original classification within three months. Judicial precedents emphasizing fair hearing for landowners were followed. The cou

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed. Reclassification of land as 'B' kharab quashed. Respondents directed to restore classification to 'A' kharab within three months after following due process.

N. Viswanath Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.23572 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N. VISWANATH

¶9

S/O. LATE R.NARAYANASWAMY

¶10

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.304

¶11

VISTARA SUNNINGDALE NO.193, 4^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN DUO HEIGHTS LAYOUT BEGUR BENGALURU - 560068

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MS. VEENA HARI D/O LATE. A. R.HARI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.42 2^ND CROSS, WHEELERS ROAD SINDHI COLONY FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE - 560 005

¶14

MS.VIDHYA HARI D/O LATE. A. R. HARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.42 2^ND CROSS WHEELERS ROAD SINDHI COLONY

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

FRAZER TOWN

BANGALORE - 560 005

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SHASHI KIRAN V, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560001

¶22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KANDHAYA BHAVAN K. G. ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560009

¶23

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KANDHAYA BHAVAN K. G. ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560009

¶24

THAHSILDAR KANDHAYA BHAVAN K.G.ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560009

¶25

ADLR (ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS) KANDHAYA BHAVAN K. G. ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU 560009

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30.06.2023 VIDE ANNX-A AND ISSUE ENDORSEMENT TO THAT EFFECT AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶34

2. The petitioners, who are owners of the land bearing Survey No. 153 of Uttari Village, Uttari Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, have approached this Court, aggrieved by the reclassification of ‘A’ kharab land as ‘B’ kharab land by the Tahsildar (respondent No.4). The said reclassification occurred after the phodi (survey and partition) proceedings were conducted. The petitioners

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶37

allege that the reclassification was done without any enquiry or prior notice to them, in violation of established legal principles governing the classification of kharab land.

¶38

3. The dispute pertains to the land classified as "phot kharab" in Sy. No.153. Before the phodi proceedings, the land in question was classified as ‘A’ kharab. However, post-phodi, it was reclassified as ‘B’ kharab without conducting any formal enquiry or providing an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard. The petitioners, aggrieved by this reclassification, submitted representations to the concerned authorities on 30.06.2023 and 20.02.2024, as evidenced by Annexures - A and B. The authorities, however, failed to act upon these representations, leading the petitioners to approach this Court.

¶39

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the initial classification of the land as ‘A’ kharab is evident from the manual RTC (Record of Rights, Tenancy and Crops). The counsel further argued that ‘A’ kharab

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶41

land, as consistently held by this Court, vests in the landowners as part of their holding. Reclassifying the land as ‘B’ kharab without following due process, including conducting an enquiry and notifying the petitioners, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners, therefore, seek an order quashing the reclassification and directing the authorities to restore the original classification of the land as ‘A’ kharab.

¶42

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), representing the State, pointed out that the issue of kharab land classification is governed by the Notification dated 16.05.2018, which constitutes a Committee to address grievances related to kharab land. The AGA argued that the petitioners' grievance could be examined by this Committee and that the authorities acted within their powers while conducting the phodi proceedings.

¶43

6. Kharab land is broadly classified into two categories under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964:

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶45

‘A’ kharab land refers to land that is part of the holding of the landowner but is unsuitable for cultivation due to its inherent nature. This type of land is included in the owner's title and possession.

¶46

‘B’ kharab land is land that vests in the government for public purposes, and the landowner has no title or ownership over it.

¶47

7. This Court, in various judgments, has consistently held that ‘A’ kharab land cannot be reclassified as ‘B’ kharab land without following due process. One of the key judgments in this regard is the decision in MUNIYAPPA VS. TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS¹ , where this Court held that the reclassification of ‘A’ kharab land to ‘B’ kharab land requires a proper enquiry and opportunity for the landowner to be heard. Similarly, in NANJAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA² , this Court reiterated that the landowner’s rights over ‘A’ kharab land cannot be summarily extinguished without due process.

¶48

1 (2003)ILR KAR 400

¶49

2 (2015) 2 KCCR 1449

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶51

In J. VENKATAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA³ , this Court emphasized that any reclassification of kharab land must be done in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing.

¶52

8. On a detailed examination of the records, including the manual RTC, this Court finds that the kharab land in Sy. No. 153 was initially classified as ‘A’ kharab. The reclassification of this land as ‘B’ kharab post-phodi proceedings appears to have been done without any formal enquiry or prior notice to the petitioners. This reclassification is, prima facie , in violation of the principles laid down in the above-cited judgments, which mandate that landowners must be given an opportunity to be heard before any reclassification of kharab land takes place.

¶53

9. The manual RTC clearly indicates that the kharab land was classified as ‘A’ kharab prior to the phodi proceedings. This classification, which vests ownership in

¶54

3 (2012)3 KLJ 472

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶56

the landowner, cannot be altered casually by the authorities. As held in Muniyappa and other cases, reclassification of kharab land from ‘A’ to ‘B’ kharab must be preceded by an enquiry, and the affected landowners must be notified and given a chance to present their case.

¶57

10. In the present case, the respondent No. 4 – Tahsildar has failed to follow this procedure, thereby infringing on the petitioners’ rights. The petitioners have a legal right to seek redressal of their grievance, and the authorities are duty-bound to consider their representations.

¶58

11. The learned AGA has drawn this Court's attention to the Notification dated 16.05.2018, which constitutes a Committee to address grievances related to kharab land. While this Committee may have the power to look into the petitioners' grievance, the reclassification of ‘A’ kharab land as ‘B’ kharab land without following due process remains legally unsustainable.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶61

12. In light of the above analysis and the settled legal principles, this Court holds that the reclassification of

¶62

‘A’ kharab land as ‘B’ kharab land in Sy. No.153, Uttari Village, was done without following due process, including the absence of an enquiry and failure to notify the petitioners. Therefore, the action of respondent No. 4 – Tahsildar is illegal and cannot be sustained.

¶63

13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶66

(ii) The reclassification of ‘A’ kharab land as ‘B’ kharab land in Sy. No.153, Uttari Village, Uttari Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, is quashed.

¶67

(iii) The respondents authorities are directed to restore the classification of the land as ‘A’ kharab, as reflected in the manual RTC, subject to any decision that may be taken by the Committee constituted under the Notification dated

¶68

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:39591 WP No. 23572 of 2024

¶69

16.05.2018, after following due process and providing an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard.

¶70

(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order copy.

¶71

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶72

NBM

¶73

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

N. Viswanath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Viswanath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Muneer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Subbarayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkategowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr T S Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lakshmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka