Allowed¶49

Smt Parvathamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WP/1288/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 38A Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961; 'unrecorded habitation' notification quashed; khatedar/kathedar entry in revenue records divests Deputy Commissioner of power; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; Davangere district, Nyamati/Honnali taluk, Arundi Village Sy. No. 96/3; restoration of petitioner's name in revenue records; Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka; WP No. 1288 of 2026 (LR); R Devdas J.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned notification at Annexure-A dated 24.11.2025 bearing No.RRT/CR/155/2025-26 quashed and set aside; respondents - Tahsildar, Nyamati Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District - directed to immediately restore the petitioner's name in the revenue records; Additional Government Advocate permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. ¶49

Smt Parvathamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 declaring certain areas, including the petitioner's land, as 'unrecorded habitation' is valid and can stand against land recorded in the name of a private individual (khatedar). +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

On a perusal of the RTC extract and revenue records at Annexure-D, the name of the petitioner was found entered therein and the petitioner is the khatedar of the said land; consequently the impugned notification could not cover her land.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Where the revenue records disclose that land stands in the name of a private individual (kathedar/khatedar), the Deputy Commissioner has no power under Section 38A to record it as an 'unrecorded habitation'; such entries divest the Deputy Commissioner of that power.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (R Devdas, J., oral order dated 03.02.2026) allowed W.P. No. 1288 of 2026 (LR) filed by Smt. Parvathamma, khatedar of Sy. No. 96/3, Arundi Village, Honnali Taluk, Davangere, and quashed the notification dated 24.11.2025 (No.RRT/CR/155/2025-26) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere under Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 insofar as it declared her land part of an 'unrecorded habitation'. Construing Section 38A(1), the Court held that where revenue records disclose land standing in the name of a private individual, the Deputy Commissioner is divested of power to notify it as an unrecorded habitation; the RTC/revenue records at Annexure-D showed the petitioner's name entered and her as khatedar. The Tahsildar, Nyamati Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District were directed to immediately restore the petitioner's name in the revenue records. Learned counsel had placed reliance on earlier coordinate-bench orders in W.P.No.101121/2022 and connected matters (disposed 23.01.2024), W.P.No.9321/2024 (order dated 22.01.2025) and W.P.No.103974/2022 (order dated 28.02.2025), where the Court had noted notifications under Section 38A issued without public notice or verification of revenue records.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6363 WP No. 1288 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1288 OF 2026 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O. ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT. ARUNDI VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANGERE - 577 223.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SHWETHA NAYAK N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING,

¶15

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE DISTRICT DAVANGERE - 577 001.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR NYAMATI TALUK, DAVENGERE - 577 223.

¶18

THE LAND TRIBUNAL HONNALI TALUK,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:6363 WP No. 1288 of 2026

HC-KAR

HONNALI - 577 213.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE BEARING 24.11.2025 ORDER DATED IMPUGNED RRT/CR/155/2025-26 PASSED BY THE NO. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE I.E., RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A), INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO SY. NO. 96/3, ARUNDI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

¶29

for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶30

Although, the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:6363 WP No. 1288 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned notification issued by the Deputy Commissioner exercising powers under Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 declaring certain areas as ‘unrecorded habitation’, which also includes the lands belonging to the petitioner.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several judgments of this Court including a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.101121/2022 and connected matters, which were disposed of on 23.01.2024, followed by orders passed in W.P.No.9321/2024 dated 22.01.2025 and W.P.No.103974/2022 dated 28.02.2025, where this Court has clearly held that the Court has come across several matters where notifications under Section 38A of the Act 1961 have been issued by Deputy Commissioners without issuing any public notice and/or even verifying the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioners were advised that in future they shall firstly look into the revenue records, obtain the details as regards the lands which are

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6363 WP No. 1288 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

proposed to be notified under Section 38A of the Act before issuing any notification. It was directed that if entries are found in the revenue records showing an individual as the kathedar, then notices will have to be issued to such persons who are the recorded kathedars. It was directed that if no entries are found, then the Deputy Commissioner will have to record such a statement that no entries are found in the revenue records, so that in the event of any challenge being raised, the Deputy Commissioner can fall back on the said information.

¶39

This Court has also considered the powers of the Deputy Commissioner as contained in Section 38A(1). The provision reads as follows;

¶40

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, where in any village, agricultural labourer is ordinarily residing on dwelling house on a land not belonging to him in an unrecorded habitations like Lambani Tanda, Gollarahatti, Vaddarahatti, Kurubarhatti, Nayakarahatti, Majare Grama, Haadi, Doddi, Palya, Camp, Colony or any other such unrecorded habitations falling within the jursidiction of that village, on the date of

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6363 WP No. 1288 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2016, which is notified as such by the Deputy Commissioner, specifying the survey numbers and boundaries in the pre scribed manner, such dwelling house or houses along with the site thereof and land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for its enjoyment shall, on the date of such notification by the Deputy Commissioner, vest absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances and the agricultural labourer shall be entitled to be registered as owner thereof.”

¶44

It is therefore clear that if the revenue records disclose the fact that the lands are standing in the name of a private individual, then it will not permit the Deputy Commissioner to record the same as ‘unrecorded habitations’. In that view of the matter, it is clear that in all cases where the revenue records would reveal or disclose the name of a private individual as the kathedar, then it would divest the Deputy Commissioner from power to proceed as ‘unrecorded habitation’. From a perusal of

¶45

the RTC extract and revenue records at Annexure-D it is evident that the name of the petitioner was entered in the

¶46

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6363 WP No. 1288 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

same and that the petitioner is the khatedar of the said land.

¶49

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned notification at Annexure-A dated 24.11.2025 bearing No.RRT/CR/155/2025-26 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, it is hereby directed that respondents - Tahsildar, Nyamati Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, shall immediately restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

¶50

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶51

permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶52

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶53

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt Parvathamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Parvathamma 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

Sri Mohammed Shafiq Arshad Vs Mr. Gladys D Souza

Sri Kumar H N Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kalamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Divya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mangalamma Vs State of Karnataka