Smt Yeshodamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2022 MADE IN NO. L.N.D.K.C.R.138/2022-23 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN SO FAR AS THE LAND BEARING SY NO. 130/1, I.E. SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes

¶29

notice for all the respondents.

¶30

Although, the matter is coming up for

¶31

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

¶32

In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned notification issued by the

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9704 WP No. 2182 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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 petitioners.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶37

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 proposed to be notified under Section 38A of the Act before issuing any notification. It was directed that if

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9704 WP No. 2182 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

This Court has also considered the powers of

¶42

the Deputy Commissioner as contained in Section 38A(1). The provision reads as follows;

¶43

“(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 commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2016, which is notified as such by the Deputy Commissioner, specifying the survey

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9704 WP No. 2182 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

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.”

¶47

It is therefore clear that if the revenue records

¶48

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 the RTC extract and revenue records at Annexures-A and B, it is evident that the name of the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was entered in the same and that he is the khatedar of the said lands.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9704 WP No. 2182 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned notification at Annexure-D dated 02.11.2021 and consequent order at Annexure–C dated 18.08.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, it is hereby directed that respondents - Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, shall immediately restore the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶52

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶53

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

¶54

SD/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶55

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Yeshodamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Yeshodamma 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 Althaf Sab Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Adyu Estates Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri D S Venkataramana Babu Vs Sri M M v Sridhar

Sri v Narayana Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mahesh Hegde Vs Mrs. Kamala