Smt. Kasturewwa W/O Late Somapp Annigere Vs the State of Karnataka

DR. SHIDDAPPA S/O. KAREPPA GUNDIKERI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/AT. H.NO.330, RENUKA NILAYA, RENUKANAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580 030, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8297 WP No. 101077 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582 101.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG SUB-DIVISION, GADAG-582 101.

¶25

THE TAHSILDAR, MUNDARGI TALUKA, MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582 101.

¶26

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHYATH DAMBAL, AT: DAMBAL, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R5)

¶29

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. REV/GA.MN.DN./CR-01/2017-18 DATED 30.1.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CORRIGENDUM ORDER BEARING NO.REV/GA. MUN.DANA/CR-01/2017-18 DATED 21.12.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8297 WP No. 101077 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

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

¶37

Learned AGA Sri. M. M. Khannur, takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶38

Petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash the impugned notification dated 30.01.2019 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C and corrigendum dated 21.12.2019 vide Annexure-D issued by respondent No.2.

¶39

It is the case of petitioners that they are the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.278/6 measuring 3 acres 8 guntas situated at D.S. Narayanpur, Mundargi Taluk, Gadag District. Petitioners contend that the petition property is their ancestral property and they are cultivating the said land. In a portion of the said land, 57 families are unauthorisedly residing by putting up temporary sheds. The petitioners’ forefathers have objected for constructing their houses but no steps have

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8297 WP No. 101077 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

been taken to evict them and since they have made request, they have been permitted to continue to stay with a condition not to put up any more construction in the remaining land. 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 petitioners were not notified neither they were heard before filing such report or conducting such inspection. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated 30.01.2019 came to be issued behind back of the petitioners. Thereafter, the notification came to be displayed in the office of Tahsildar, inviting objections from the public and the respondent to mutate the name of Government of Karnataka in respect of lands mentioned in the said impugned notification.

¶43

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners 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

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8297 WP No. 101077 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

opportunity to the petitioners. Thereafter, name of Government of Karnataka is mutated in respect of petition property. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, whereby no opportunity of hearing was given and without inviting objections, the name of Government of Karnataka

¶47

came to be mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the same is violative of the principles of natural justice without following due process of law. Hence, the present petition.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that, in identical case, very same impugned notification came to be quashed in Writ Petition No.101183/2022.

¶49

Per Contra, the learned AGA contends that the 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 the similar notification came to be quashed reserving liberty to the respondent authorities. Same is placed on record.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8297 WP No. 101077 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

It is necessary to see in Rule 2(iii-b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, which is extracted below:

¶53

“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.”

¶54

In the instant case, no notice or any such opportunity of hearing or inviting of objections has been conducted or provided to the petitioners before passing the impugned notification and change of entry in the name of Government of Karnataka. Therefore, the impugned notification issued is contrary to Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 9-B of Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. Petition is allowed.

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8297 WP No. 101077 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ii. The impugned notification dated 30.01.2019 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

¶60

iii. The Tahsildar concerned shall restore the name of petitioners by deleting the name of the Government in the revenue records in respect of petition property i.e., Sy.No.278/6, measuring 03 acre, 08 guntas situated at D S Narayanpur, Mundargi Taluk, Gadag District, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶61

iv. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to take steps for issuing notification under Section 38-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 after duly notifying the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶62

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 118

¶64

gab CT-MCK

Smt. Kasturewwa W/O Late Somapp Annigere v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kasturewwa W/O Late Somapp Annigere v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Basavanni S/O Ningappa Hukkeri R/by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mallikarjuna S/O Basvaraj Koni Vs Superintendent of Police

Shamsunder James Deodhar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ferro Vaishnavi Ferro Sand Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Umesh S/O Subhas Soodi Vs Smt. Basamma W/O Subhas Sudi

Shri. Marutirao S/O Somnath Vs the State of Karnataka