Karnataka High Court
Smt S Jalaja vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7080
WP No. 35192 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 35192 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. S. JALAJA
W/O N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT KUVEMPU NAGARA
'SUKADA NILAYA'
TUMAKURU-572 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Location: HIGH MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
COURT OF TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 101.
KARNATKA
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION
TUMAKURU-572 132.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7080
WP No. 35192 of 2024
5. THE TAHSILDAR
TUMAKURU TALUK
TUMAKURU-572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .K, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT BEARING ECOMP.NO.501276 DATED
15.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AT
ANNEXURE A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 15.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 evidenced at Annexure-A, wherein respondent No.1 while declining petitioner's request has invoked Section 115 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and has declined to subject 'A' kharab land for revenue assessment.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7080 WP No. 35192 of 2024
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.
3. Under Section 112 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the State Government possesses the authority to order a fresh survey or conduct any subsidiary operation necessary for such a survey. However, the proviso to this section stipulates that once a general classification of the soil within a particular area has been undertaken, finalized, and approved by the State Government, no further classification shall be carried out solely for the purpose of revising the assessment of that area. In this context, Section 115 of the Act provides that any survey settlement undertaken by the State Government shall remain effective for a period of 30 years. The petitioner's counsel has challenged the impugned endorsement on the ground that the last survey of the relevant land was conducted in the year 1918. As a result, it is argued that Section 112 cannot be invoked for a fresh classification, as the statutory period for -4- NC: 2025:KHC:7080 WP No. 35192 of 2024 reassessment has long expired. The counsel further submits that the authorities' refusal to reconsider the petitioner's request amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power, contrary to the statutory framework laid down under the Act.
4. In the present case, the petitioner, who is the lawful owner of 'A' kharab land, submitted a representation before the revenue authorities, seeking reclassification of 12 guntas of such land. The petitioner specifically requested that this portion of land be brought under the category of cultivable land and that an assessment be determined in accordance with Section 84(2) and Section 122(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Despite this submission, the concerned authorities, vide the impugned endorsement, have declined the petitioner's request. The authorities have reasoned that the classification of the land as 'A' kharab remains unchanged and that there is no basis for reconsidering the assessment as sought by the petitioner. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:7080 WP No. 35192 of 2024
5. This Court, in an identical matter, had an occasion to examine the rights of an owner of 'A' kharab land concerning its classification and assessment. In W.P. No.5497/2024, this Court elaborated on the legal position governing the treatment of such land and addressed the issue effectively. It was held that when a landowner seeks reclassification of 'A' kharab land, the competent authorities are duty-bound to assess the claim based on the relevant provisions of the Act rather than outrightly rejecting it. The reasoning and observations in the said judgment are directly applicable to the present case. The relevant portion of Paragraph 4 of W.P. No.5497/2024 reads as follows:
"4. From the judicial precedents set forth by this Court, it is established that 'A' kharab lands generally remain the property of the landowner and can be subjected to assessment under the provisions of the Act. However, 'B' kharab lands are vested with the State Government, and adjoining landowners only possess limited rights, such as possessory or cultivation rights, without ownership. The learned AGA has rightly raised an objection, contending that -6- NC: 2025:KHC:7080 WP No. 35192 of 2024 a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to bring 'B' kharab lands under assessment, as such lands fall outside the purview of Sections 84 and 122(b) of the Act. These provisions pertain exclusively to patta lands and 'A' kharab lands, not extending to the diversion or assessment of 'B' category lands."
6. In the light of the findings recorded insofar as 'A' kharab land is concerned, this Court is of the view that a land owner who owns 'A' kharab land is entitled to seek assessment under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 'A' kharab land generally remain the property of the land owner and can be subjected to assessment under the provisions of the Act provided the land owner is able to substantiate that 'A' kharab land can be subjected to cultivation.
7. The impugned endorsement fails to provide any justification for the action taken by the authorities and lacks specific details regarding the date of the last survey settlement conducted by them. In the absence of such crucial particulars, the rejection of the petitioner's request -7- NC: 2025:KHC:7080 WP No. 35192 of 2024 appears arbitrary and unsupported by law. Given the principles established in the aforementioned decision, the petitioner's request warrants proper consideration, and a mere mechanical denial of such claims cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned endorsement is legally untenable and is liable to be set aside.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 15.11.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 is hereby quashed;
(iii) The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is hereby directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 14.10.2024 as per Annexure-D and pass appropriate orders strictly aligning to Section 84(2) read with Section 122(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964;-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:7080 WP No. 35192 of 2024
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24