Allowed¶63

Smt Arti Kishore v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2025WP/50871/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

kumki privilege withdrawal; Section 79(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964; Deputy Commissioner Dakshina Kannada; Sy.No.8/45 Malavooru village; varga land; Haj Bhavan; District Minorities Welfare Department; Palguni river; natural justice; sufficient opportunity; cryptic order; certiorari Articles 226 227; remand six months; K. Sham Bhat ILR 2003 KAR 3026; WP 50871/2019 (KLR-RES); Justice Rajesh Rai K.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.08.2019 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner set aside; matter remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration of reference REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19 by extending opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case by producing relevant documents/records, within an outer limit of six months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶63

Smt Arti Kishore Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 withdrawing the kumki privilege of the petitioners and other varga holders over Sy.No.8/45 of Malavooru village was lawful, i.e., passed under Section 79(2) of the KLR Act after due enquiry, consideration of objections and proper notice to all affected holders. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

Though the Deputy Commissioner had received the petitioners' statement of objections, he had not provided sufficient opportunity to them to put forth their case; the other 15 kumki privilege holders did not appear; the reports of the Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner and the Village Accountant's checklist (Annexures-F and G) confirmed the kumki attachment and ongoing agricultural activity; therefore the Deputy Commissioner ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to contest their claim over the subject land.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

As held by this Court and the Apex Court in a catena of judgments, the power to extinguish kumki privilege can be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner selectively depending upon the predominant public interest sought to be achieved.

¶53

Key takeaways

The acquisition of the subject land for the Minority Department (Haj Bhavan) is not with regard to the public interest at large.ratio¶57
Kumki privilege can be curtailed, abridged or taken away only in accordance with the law, in view of the provisions contemplated in Section 79(2) of the KLR Act.ratio¶57
The Deputy Commissioner passed a cryptic order hurriedly without assigning proper reasons and without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to contest their claim; hence the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution — Deputy Commissioner's order dated 20.08.2019 (Annexure-A) in REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19, passed under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, withdrawing the kumki privilege over 2.16 acres in Sy.No.8/45 of Malavooru village (attached to the petitioners' varga lands) and reserving the land for the Minority Department's Haj Bhavan building, set aside. While the power to extinguish kumki privilege may be exercised selectively for predominant public interest, the present reservation was held not to be for the public interest at large; the Deputy Commissioner had the petitioners' objections yet afforded no sufficient opportunity, the other 15 privilege holders went unheard, official reports and the Village Accountant's checklist confirmed kumki attachment and cultivation, and the order was cryptic and hasty. Kumki privilege can be curtailed, abridged or taken away only in accordance with Section 79(2), KLR Act. Petition allowed; matter remitted for fresh consideration within six months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50871 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT ARTI KISHORE W/O KISHORE KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶10

SMT R RATHI DEVI W/O LATE LAXMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT 'PANCHAJANAYA' KADRI TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE-3

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT-575 001

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT-575 001

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR MANGALORE

¶19

DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

DISTRICT MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT MINORITIES WELFATER OFFICER, MOULANA AZAD BHAVAN, OLD KENT ROAD, PANDESHWAR, MANGALURU,D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SIDDAPPA N.C, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners in this writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19 by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, whereby respondent No.1 exercising powers under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity, " the KLR Act ") removed the Kumki privilege of the property bearing Sy.No.8/45 of Malavooru village held by the respective holders including the

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

petitioners, who were in possession of the same, by reserving 2.16 acres out of said survey number for public purpose i.e., to the Minority Department for construction of Haj Bhavan building.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.8/53, 8/52, 8/45 and 8/50 of Malavooru village. Out of these lands, land bearing Sy.No.8/45 accede to the Kumki privilege for the use of varga holders of the said area for better enjoyment and cultivation in their respective lands, including for securing green manure and also for grazing cattle.

¶35

Things stood thus, respondent No.3 forwarded a proposal

¶36

to respondent No.2 to reserve 2.16 Acres of land in Sy No.8/45 for the purpose of construction of Haj Bhavan vide letter 22.10.2018. Respondent No.2, in turn, forwarded the same to respondent No.1 on 27.11.2018 for withdrawal of kumki privilege of petitioners and others in respect of 2.16 Acres in Sy No.8/45.

¶37

Based on the proposal of respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioners on 28.12.2018 and to

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

other persons who were holding kumki privilege over the subject land. The petitioners filed a detailed objection before respondent No.1 about their right, possession and the consequence of withdrawal of their kumki privilege and explained about the non-feasibility of the subject land for construction of Haj Bhavan as the said land was situated within the bank of Palguni river. Despite respondent No.1, without considering the objections of the petitioners and without duly serving notice to others, hastily passed the impugned order by withdrawing the kumki privilege of the petitioners and others over subject land vide Annexure-A.

¶41

Heard Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶42

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, without considering the objections filed by the petitioners and without considering the vast improvement made by the petitioners in the subject land being the kumki land of their

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

varga, has passed the impugned order. He further contended that, the kumki privilege is protected under Section 79(2) of the KLR Act and without proper enquiry, respondent No.1 ought not have withdrawn the said privilege, despite the report of the Village accountant regarding possession and enjoyment of the portion of the subject land by the petitioners.

¶46

He also contended that, the privilege of kumki lands of other 15 persons was also withdrawn without serving proper notice to them. Additionally, he contended that respondent No.1 has passed a cryptic order without assigning proper reasons to withdraw the kumki privilege. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶47

Per contra , learned counsel for the contesting respondent contended that respondent No.1, after issuing notice to all the 16 persons including these petitioners, who were in possession of kumki land in the total extent of 2 acres 16 guntas, passed the impugned order. According to him, the other 15 persons were not appeared before respondent No.1. Further, the petitioners cannot claim a kumki privilege as a matter of right in view of the settled position of law by this court in K. SHAM

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

BHAT AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF KARANTAKA - ILR 2003 KAR

¶51

3026 . Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶52

Learned HCGP supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

As could be gathered from records, it is undisputed that the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of kumki privilege in Sy.No.8/45 which is attached to their varga land and also the other 15 land owners were in possession and enjoyment of kumki privilege land. No doubt, this Court and the Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that the power to extinguish Kumki privilege can be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner selectively depending upon the predominant public interest sought to be achieved. However, in the instant case, respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn the privilege of kumki to an extent of 2.16 acres in Sy.No.8/45 and ordered to hand over the land to the Minority Department for construction of Haj Bhavan building.

¶54

On careful perusal of the impugned proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1, it is noticed that though the Deputy Commissioner has received the statement of

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

objections filed by the petitioners, had not provided sufficient opportunity to them to put forth their case in detail. Further, it could be seen from the proceedings that the other 15 persons were not appeared before the Deputy Commissioner. Further, respondent No.3 -Tahsildar and respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner categorically stated in their report that the subject land is a kumki land attached to the varga land of the petitioners and others. The checklist provided by the Village Accountant of Malavooru village at Annexure-F and G also depicts that there are agricultural activities being carried in the subject land. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to contest their claim over the subject land. Nevertheless, the acquisition of subject land is not with regard to the public interest at large. In such circumstance, the kumki privilege can be curtailed, abridged or taken away only in accordance with the law in view of provisions as contemplated in Section 79(2) of the KLR Act.

¶58

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has passed a cryptic order hurriedly without providing sufficient opportunity to the

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44811 WP No. 50871 of 2019

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

petitioners to contest their claim over the subject land. Hence, in my considered view, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. In view of the same, I proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The writ petition is allowed.

¶64

The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is set aside.

¶65

The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration of reference in REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19, by extending opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case by producing relevant documents/records within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶66

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶67

PKS

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Smt Arti Kishore v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Arti Kishore v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Sri. U.T. Annegowda Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Krishnappa B M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sundaramma Vs Sri Nagappa

Chigatereappa Vs Shivakumar

N Govindaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sadath Ulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka