Prashantha S.A. Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE IN ORDER NO. RRT/CR/108/2025-26 DATED 16-09-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER SO FAR AS PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION IN ORDER NO KUM. GRA.CR. 46/2025-26 DATED 25-09-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶44

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

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:3321 WP No. 38469 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

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

¶51

In this writ petition, the petitioners are 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 petitioners.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶53

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

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3321 WP No. 38469 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Court has clearly held that the Court has come across several matters where notifications under Section 38A of the Act have been issued by Deputy Commissioners without issuing any public notice and/or even verifying the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioners were advised

¶57

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

¶58

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.

¶59

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶60

however points out to Annexure-D, where a notice has

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3321 WP No. 38469 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

been issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling for information or objections. However, this Court has to notice the fact that at Annexure-E is the reply or objections given by the petitioners which also contains the seal and signature of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for having received the same on 13.08.2025. However, in the impugned notice nothing is stated regarding the objections raised by the petitioners and consideration of the same at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner.

¶64

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

¶65

“(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,

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3321 WP No. 38469 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

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.”

¶69

It is therefore clear that if the revenue records

¶70

disclose the fact that the lands are standing in the name of

¶71

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’. This Court has no hesitation to hold that having regard to the admitted fact that notice has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F stating that the petitioner is the kathedar, then the Deputy Commissioner will not be permitted to

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3321 WP No. 38469 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

proceed further to declare the lands in question as ‘unrecorded habitation’.

¶75

In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are

¶76

allowed . The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere, in order No.RRT/CR/108/2025-26 dated 16.09.2025 vide Annexure-F is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, it is hereby directed that respondents - Tahsildar, Davanagere Taluk, and the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District, shall immediately restore the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶77

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶78

KLY

¶79

CT: JL

Prashantha S.A. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashantha S.A. 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 Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sulochanamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Yellamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sarojamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Giriyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B.H. Shivananda, Vs State of Karnataka