State of Karnataka Vs T Uma Shankar

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.10551/2023 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. b)CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS WRIT PETITION NO.10551/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A.No.1/2025, the

¶31

same is allowed. The delay of 365 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47972-DB WA No. 102 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10551/2023 (KLR-RES).

¶35

The respondent had filed the said writ petition impugning a notice dated 21.10.2021 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [hereafter ' the KLR Act '] in respect of land measuring 1 acre and 10 guntas falling in Survey No.21/3 located at Chinnapanahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [ subject land ].

¶36

It was the petitioner's case that he was the owner in possession of the land falling in Survey No.21/1 measuring 30 guntas out of which 7 guntas was kharab land; land falling in Survey No. 21/2 measuring 3 acres out of which land to the extent of 2 guntas was kharab land; and land falling in Survey No.21/3 measuring 2 acres and 34 guntas out of which 1 acre and 10 guntas was kharab land.

¶37

It is his case that nobody except his family was using the

¶38

said land and therefore, for more than 20 years the kharab land was not being utilized for any public purpose. The petitioner had

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47972-DB WA No. 102 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

filed an application for issuance of an appropriate notification under Section 68 (1) of the KLR Act. It is also claimed that the appellant had issued a notification under Section 95 of the KLR Act for conversion of the land to the extent of 2 acres and 38 guntas.

¶42

The learned Single Judge had proceeded on the basis that a notification under Section 68(5) of the KLR Act had been issued and therefore, directed the appellant to pass an appropriate order under Section 68(6) of the KLR Act. Consequently, the learned Single Judge also held that there is no jurisdiction to evict petitioners under Section 104 of the KLR Act.

¶43

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants states that an order has already been passed under Section 68(5) of the KLR Act and therefore the kharab land could not be granted. She submits that those orders were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

¶44

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned Additional Government Advocate prays that the present appeal be disposed of with liberty to the appellants to file a review petition to bring to the notice of the learned Single Judge the orders which are now

¶45