Karnataka High Court
Syed Waseem Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4451
WP No. 202356 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.202356 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SYED WASEEM AHMED,
S/O SYED KHAJA SHAH,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHITTGUPPA, TQ. CHITTGUPPA,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHIVAPUTRA S.UDBALKAR AND
SRI.SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VARSHA N 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RASALKAR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
COURT OF M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR-585401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585327.
4. TAHASILDAR,
TQ. CHITTGUPPA,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4451
WP No. 202356 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
CHITTGUPPA,
CHITTGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Sangoli Naganna., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sheshadri Jaishankar., AGA for respondents have appeared in person.
2. Though the matter is listed today for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the counsel for the respective parties, it is heard.
3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order of respondent No.2 dated 06.01.2020 in file No.CUM/LND/CR-06/2019-20 produced herewith as Annexure-B insofar as -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4451 WP No. 202356 of 2025 HC-KAR the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.190/6, Hissa 7 totally measuring 1 acre 15 guntas, situated at Chittaguppa village, Taluk Chittguppa, district Bidar.
(b) Kindly issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to restore the revenue entries at column No.9 and 12 pertaining to the land Sy.No.190/6, Hissa 07 in respect of the petitioner as it stood prior to the passing of the impugned order.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the issue involved in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Pashamiyann S/o. Maheboobsab Ladaf Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and two others, in W.P.No.200937/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR), disposed of on 05.06.2024, wherein, it is held as under:
"ORDER The petitioner claims to be the owner of 1 acre 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.329/3 of Yarandi village, Rajeshwar Hobli, Basavakalayan Taluk and Bidar District. The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, directed the authorities to cancel the khata that stood in the name of the petitioner and to enter the name of the State Government in terms of the order bearing No.KAM/LND/CR-06/2019-20 dated nil-2-2020. The petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, this Court had intervened in W.P.No.201500/2022 and -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4451 WP No. 202356 of 2025 HC-KAR directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore the entries in the revenue records. He therefore, prays that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 be set aside on the same lines as done by this Court in W.P. No.201500/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions and prayed that the petition be allowed.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has converted the aforesaid land for non-agricultural residential purposes without obtaining appropriate conversion and therefore, respondent No.1 was forced to initiate action against the petitioner.
4. If the petitioner has used agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes without obtaining requisite conversion under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), the course open to the State authorities is to invoke power conferred under Section 96 of the Act. A perusal of Section 96 of the Act does not disclose that the State Government has got the power to forfeit the land used for non-agricultural purposes. However, the State authorities are entitled to initiate suitable action as is provided under Section 96 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 deleting the name of the petitioner from the revenue records and directing the name of the State Government to be entered into revenue records is without any basis and cannot be traced to any statutory power as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. This Court, in similar circumstances had allowed W.P.No.201500/2022 and had directed the restoration of the revenue entries.
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 bearing No.KAM/LND/CR-06/2019-20 dated nil-2-2020 is quashed. The respondents authorities are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. However, this shall not come in the way of respondent No.1 initiating suitable action as provided under Section -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4451 WP No. 202356 of 2025 HC-KAR 96 of the Act, which shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition also deserves to be allowed and disposed of in terms of Pashamiyan's case (supra).
6. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2024 passed by this Court in Pashamiyan S/o.
Maheboobsab Ladaf Vs. The Deputy
Commissioner and two others, in
W.P.No.200937/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR);
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-B dated 06.01.2020 is hereby quashed;
(iii) The respondents are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, within a period of four months from the receipt of copy of this order;
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4451 WP No. 202356 of 2025 HC-KAR
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to take appropriate legal action against the petitioner, subject to all just exceptions under Section 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP/VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17