Channappa S/O. Honnappa Hukkeri Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Channappa S/O. Honnappa Hukkeri Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, confined to the question whether respondent No.4's holding violates Section 63 of the Act of 1961; no enquiry on Sections 79A and 79B; nothing expressed on the merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the transaction in favour of respondent No.4 is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. +2 more

Court's answer

Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961 have been omitted with effect from 2020, and this Court has interpreted that omission as having retrospective effect; consequently, the petitioner cannot raise a contention that the transaction in favour of respondent No.4 violates Sections 79A and 79B.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is not entertained because the impugned order is appealable under Section 118 of the Act of 1961.

Key takeaways

Any appeal is to be confined only to the question whether the holding in the name of respondent No.4 violates Section 63 of the Act of 1961.ratio¶37
No enquiry shall be held in respect of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961.ratio¶38
The Court has expressly not expressed anything on the merits of the case of the parties.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Channappa Hukkeri challenging the order dated 12.03.2020 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi, in KLR/79A/CR-03/2017-18 under Sections 63, 74, 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the finding therein of no Section 63 contravention in respect of respondent No.4's landholding. Held: (i) Sections 79A and 79B of the Act stand omitted with effect from 2020 and the Court has interpreted the omission as having retrospective effect, so the petitioner cannot urge that the transaction in favour of respondent No.4 violates those provisions; (ii) the impugned order being appealable under Section 118 of the Act, the writ petition is not entertained and is dismissed, with liberty to appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru; (iii) the appeal is confined solely to whether respondent No.4's holding violates Section 63, no enquiry is to be conducted under Sections 79A and 79B, and this Court expresses nothing on the merits of the parties' case.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15570 WP No. 101806 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101806 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

CHANNAPPA S/O. HONNAPPA HUKKERI, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHALINGPUR, TALUK. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 312.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 301.

TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL TALUK, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RACHAPPA KULLOLLI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. H.H., R/O. MAHALINGPUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 312.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

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 TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KLR/79A/CR-03/2017-18 DATED 12/03/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS NULL AND VOID.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15570 WP No. 101806 of 2021

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, assailing the order marked as Annexure-J, dated 12.03.2020, passed by respondent No.2 under Sections 63, 74, 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961¹ .

The petitioner has also challenged the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in the same order, wherein it has been held that there is no contravention of Section 63 of Act of 1961, insofar as landholding of respondent No.4 is concerned.

Learned counsel for the respondent, though served with notice, is not represented.

It is noticed that Sections 79A and 79B of Act of 1961 have been omitted with effect from 2020. This Court has interpreted that the said omission as having retrospective effect, as such the petitioner cannot raise a contention that the

1 For short, ‘Act of 1961’

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15570 WP No. 101806 of 2021

HC-KAR

transaction in favour of respondent No.4 is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of Act of 1961.

The next question is whether the landholding of respondent No.4 is in violation of Section 63 of Act of 1961. Under Section 118 of Act of 1961, the order is appealable. Hence, the petition is not entertained.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal

before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru.

It is made clear that the appeal shall be only confined to the question as to whether the holding in the name of respondent No.4 is in violation of Section 63 of Act of 1961.

The enquiry shall not be held in respect of Sections 79A and 79B of Act of 1961.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case of the parties.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PMP/CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50