Karnataka High Court
Shri. Hariharrao vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 100771 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN
SHRI. HARIHARRAO
S/O RAGHUNATHRAO PATWARDHAN
AGE. 69 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O 549/A, RAMA PALACE,
MADHAVPUR,
VADGAON, BELAGAVI-590005
TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed RPTD BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
by SHWETHA DEPT. OF REVENUE,
RAGHAVENDRA M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR
Location: HIGH VEEDHI
COURT OF BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI-590001,
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/
THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI-
590001
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI
4. THE TAHASILDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
BELAGAVI-590001
TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI
.... RESPONDENTS
I. SHRI. MALLESH S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO. 4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
II. SMT. AVVAKKA W/O DURGAPPA KOLKAR
AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO. 264, AMBEDKAR GALLI
BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE.
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591108.
III. SHRI. DEELIP S/O BHAVAKU MANDOLKAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO. 4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
IV. SMT. SUJATA D/O SHRIPADA CHOUGULE
AFTER MARRIAGE SUJATA
W/O DEELIP MANDOLKAR
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
V. SHRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O YALLAPPA KONKANE
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: H.NO. 958/2, YALLUR VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590005.
VI. SHRI. SIDRAL S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO. 44, ASHRAYA PLOT
VANTAMURI COLONY, BELAGAVI-590016
VII. SHRI. SAMPAT S/O ARJUN CHOUGULE
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: PLOT NO. 09, SEC NO.9, MALMARUTI
MM EXTENTION, BELAGAVI-590016
VIII. SMT. SUSHILA W/O BHAVAKU MANDOLKAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 69 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
IX. SMT SHOBHA W/O SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR.
AFTER MARRIAGE SHOBHA SHAM CHOUGULE
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
X. SHRI. SHAM S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
XI. SMT. PARVATI W/O RAMLING CHOUGULE
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC;
AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4124, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE
KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
XII. SMT. RENUKA S/O NANDU KAMBLE (DECEASED)
XIII. SMT. RENUKA GOPAL CHOUGULE
AFTER MARRIAGE RENUKA BALKRISHNA KOKANE
AGE: 50 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.958/2, YALLUR VILLAGE
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590005.
XIV. SMT. SURESH S/O FAKIRAPPA METRI. (DECEASED)
XV. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O SHRIDHAR KAMBLE
AGE: 57 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.897, AMBEDKAR GALLI KAKATI.
BELAGAVI-591113.
XVI. SHRI. RAMESH S/O ARJUN CHOUGULE
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: PLOT NO. 09, SEC NO.9, MALMARUTI
MM EXTENTION, BELAGAVI-590016
XVII. SHRI. BHARATI BHAVAKU MANDOLKAR
AFTER MARRIAGE BAHARATI RAM NESARAKAR
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: BELAGAVI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
FLAT NO. A/101, JAGRUTI APARTMENT
RADHA BAI MHATRE ROAD, NEAR VITTAL MANDIR,
DAHISAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400068
XVIII. SHRI KAMALA GOPAL CHOUGULE. (DECEASED)
XIX. SHRI SANJAY GURUPAD SULAGEKAR
AGE: 53 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.06, SECTOR NO.5
SHREE NAGAR BELAGAVI-590010.
XX. SMT. RAJASHRI S/O ASHOK METRI
AFTER MARRIAGE RAJASHRI PRAKASH CHOUGULE
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.43, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI COLONY,
BELAGAVI-590016
XXI. SMT. LAXMI W/O PARSHURAM CHOUGULE (DECEASED)
XXII. SMT. REKHA BASAVANI CHALAWADI
AGE: 63 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.613, MAIN ROAD
SAMBRA VIILAGE, BELAGAVI-591124.
XXIII. SMT. NILAWWA W/O CHANGAPPA KOKANE
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.958/1, MAHATAM FULE GALLI YALLUR VILLAGE
BELAGAVI-590005.
XXIV. SHRI. SACHIN S/O YALLAPPA KOLAKAR
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.74/1, MARKANDEYA NAGAR
BELAGAVI-590010.
XXV. SHRI. SATISH GURUPRASAD SULAGEKAR
AGE: 55 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.06, SECTOR NO.5 SHREE NAGAR
BELAGAVI-590010.
XXVI. SHRI. ANAND S/O YALLAPPA KAMBLE (DECEASED)
XXVII. SHRI. RAMA S/O KALLAPPA KOLAKAR
AGE: 78 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.649/2 AMBEDKAR GALLI,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
ANGOL BELAGAVI-590006.
XXVIII. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.43, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI COLONY
BELAGAVI-590016.
XXIX. SHRI. ASHOK FAKIRAPPA METRI (DECEASED)
XXX. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O MALLAPPA RAYAVVGOL
AGE: 47 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.468, BASAVANKUDACHI
AMBEDKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-591124.
XXXI. SHRI. SIDDAPPA RAMA ASHTEKAR (DECEASED)
XXXII. SHRI. RAMA GUNAJI MAHAR @ NESARAKAR
AGE: 68 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: BELAGAVI.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. A/101,
JAGRUTI APARTMENT RADHA BAI MHATRE ROAD,
NEAR VITTAL MANDIR, DAHISAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400068
XXXIII. SHRI. SIDRAI S/O YALLAPPA KAMBLE (DECEASED)
XXXIV. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O BHIMSEN CHOUGULE
AGE: 49 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4124, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGARL GALLI,
BELAGAVI-590001.
XXXV. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O DURGAPPA KOLKAR
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.264, AMBEDKAR GALLI BENAKANHALLI,
BELAGAVI 591108.
XXXVI. SHRI. RAJU KALLAPPA KAMBLE (DEACEASED)
XXXVII. SMT. GOURI W/O PRALHAD ALAGAWADI.
AFTER MARRIAGE GOURI MALLESH CHOUGULE
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGARL GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
XXXVIII. SHRI. JAYASHREE @ JAYAMALA MAHADEV BADAWANCHE
AGE: 63 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4137, KANGARL GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001.
XXXIX. SHRI. ANJANA GUNDU REVALE.
AFTER MARRIAGE ANJANA SHIDRAM CHOUGULE
AGE: 54 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.44, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI PLOT,
BELAGAVI 590016.
XL. SMT. SUVARNA W/O DAYANAND DHALE
AFTER MARRIAGE SUVARNA RAMESH CHOUGULE
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.45 ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI PLOT,
BELAGAVI 590016
XLI. SHRI. ANUPAMA W/O PRALHADARAO ALAGAWADI
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.1050, ANANT SHYAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
XLII. SHRI. KIRAN MAHADEV BADAVANACHE
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.4137, KANGRAL GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
XLIII. SHRI. BHASKAR RAMCHANDRA @ RAMRAO HAMPIHOLI
AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: PLOT NO.69 LORD VENKATESHWAR COLONY
BAUXITE ROAD KANGALI (KH), BELAGAVI 590010.
XLIV. SHRI. KANCHANA GUNDU REWALE
AFTER MARRIAGE KANCHAN MARUTI KARENNAVAR
AGE: 52 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.335/0, INDRA NAGAR,
ANGOL BELAGAVI 590006.
XLV. SHRI. SANJAY PRALHAD ALAGWADI
AGE: 51 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.1050, ANANT SHYAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
XLVI. SHRI. LALITA W/O JYOTIBA PATIL (DECEASED)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
XLVII. SMT. VARSHA W/O BALKRISHNA DHAMNEKAR
AFTER MARRIAGE VARSHA VIJAY MANOLKAR
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE
R/O: H.NO.3399, GONDALI GALLI,
BELAGAVI 590001.
XLVIII. SRI. RAMA S/O FAKIRAPPA CHAVAN
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PLOT NO. 39/19, 3 CROSS VAIBHAV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590010.
... IMPLEADING APPLICANTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. NAGARATNA S. PATTAR., ADVOCATE FOR
PROPOSED IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE
OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 BRG
NO. LRM: (66):SR:SR:539+451 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-L
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.09.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the
Order dated 10.01.2025 brg No. LRM
(66):SR:SR:539+451 passed by R3 vide Annexure-L
in the interest of justice and equity.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the
order dated 8.6.2007 brg No. KLR-CR/07/07-08
passed by the R3 vide Annexure-H in the interest of
justice and equity.
iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing
the R3 to allow the Declaration on Form No.11 dated:
28/12/1974 pursuant to Annexure-B and C submitted
by the Family of the petitioner in respect of land brg
Svy No.240/2D/1 measuring to an extent of 100 acres
and land brg Svy. No.240/2D/2 measuring to an
extent of 100 acres situated at Hangaragi Village, Tq
and Dist: Belagavi, in the interest of justice and
equity.
iv. Issue an appropriate direction by directing the R2 to
R4 to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of
land brg Svy No. 240/2D/1 measuring to an extent of
100 Acres and land brg Svy No. 240/2D/2 measuring
to an extent of 100 Acres situated at Hangaragi
Village, Tq and Dist: Belagavi in Column No. 9 to 12 of
the record of rights by deleting the name of the
Third parties if any, in the interest of justice and
equity
v. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The Petitioner claims that the family of the Petitioner
is the original owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.240/2D/1 measuring to an extent of 100 Acres
and land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/2 measuring to an
extent of 100 Acres situated at Hangaragi Village,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
Belagavi Taluk and District. To establish such a claim,
the Petitioner has produced the Record of Rights,
Tenancy, and Crops ('RTC' for short) in respect of the
aforesaid lands from the year 1966-1967.
3. The lands having been classified as 'E' Class land. The
family of the Petitioner had filed a declaration in Form
No.11 on 28.12.1974 after the coming into force of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter
referred to as the 'KLR Act, 1961' for short) in
compliance with Section 66 of the Act. A mining lease
had also been executed in favour of the Firm, namely
Dalachand Bahadursingh Firm of Calcutta, from the
year 1941, which had been renewed from time to
time.
4. After the filing of Form No.11, the matter had been
referred before Respondent No.3-Assistant
Commissioner, who, instead of allowing Form No.11,
had held that the family of the Petitioner is holding
excess land to the extent of 147 Acres and 24 Guntas
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
and directed them to surrender the excess land in
question vide its order dated 25.07.1977. This order
came to be challenged by the Petitioner in
W.P.No.19580-81/1979, which came to be transferred
to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority on its
constitution. Since the Authority was abolished, the
Petitioner filed W.P.No.62472/2010 before this Court.
This Court vide its order dated 18.10.2011, had
reserved liberty to the Petitioner to file a civil petition
seeking for transfer of proceedings from the Karnataka
Land Reforms Appellate Authority. Thereafter,
C.P.No.505/2012 came to be filed, which came to be
renumbered as W.P.No.103302/2015, wherein vide
order dated 03.01.2024, this Court by observing that
the land is 'E' Class land, had remitted the matter to
Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner for Fresh
Consideration.
5. Even when the proceedings were pending, Respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner, had recommended the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
allotment of land in question to third persons under
Section 77(1) of the Act for agricultural purposes vide
order dated 08.06.2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner had
submitted an application for spot inspection to
ascertain the status of possession.
6. The Revenue Inspector, having carried out the spot
inspection and submitted a report dated 15.11.2024
stating that the land in question is unfit for
agriculture. It is thereafter that Respondent No.3-
Assistant Commissioner has rejected Form No.11 filed
by the family of the Petitioner on the sole ground that
the Petitioner had not challenged the allotment made
by the Deputy Commissioner to third parties without
ascertaining the fact that the land was 'E' Class land
and is not fit for agricultural purposes. It is challenging
the order of the Deputy Commissioner as also the
order of the Assistant Commissioner that the
Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. Sri Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner:
7.1. Refers to Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the
KLR Act, 1961, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
"2. Definitions.
(18) "land" means agricultural land, that is to say,
land which is used or capable of being used for
agricultural purposes or purposes subservient
thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land,
garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but
does not include house-site or land used exclusively
for non-agricultural purposes;"
7.2. By referring to the definition of land, he submits
that land under Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of
the KLR Act, 1961, could only mean land which is
used for agricultural purposes or purposes
subservient thereto and includes horticultural
land, forest land, garden land, pasture land,
plantation and tope but does not include house-
site.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
7.3. He therefore submits that it is only as regards
land coming within the definition of Sub-Section
(18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961, that the
Deputy Commissioner could exercise his powers.
The land under Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 is
further classified into A, B, C and D, which are fit
for cultivation, and 'E' class land, which is not fit
for agricultural activities.
7.4. He therefore submits that the question of holding
excess land or otherwise would have to be
considered with reference to whether the land
could be put to agricultural use or not. If the
land cannot be put to agricultural use, the same
does not come within the purview of the KLR Act,
1961 and the question of the land being excess
or otherwise does not arise. There is a
requirement for an enquiry under Section 66 of
the KLR Act, 1961, and thereafter the Assistant
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
Commissioner was required to pass appropriate
orders.
7.5. 'E' Class land cannot also be considered for the
purpose of deciding excess land in terms of the
ceiling on land holdings under Section 63 of the
KLR Act, 1961. The same is not applicable and
the question of surrendering the alleged excess
land in terms of Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1961
would not at all arise.
7.6. This Court, having categorically come to a
conclusion that the land was 'E' Class land, it was
but required for the Assistant Commissioner to
accept the same and pass necessary orders
instead of rejecting the application on the ground
that the challenge to the allotment was made by
the Deputy Commissioner, has not been made.
More so when the allotment made by the Deputy
Commissioner was without the knowledge of the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
Petitioner, whose Form No.11 was pending
consideration before the Assistant Commissioner.
7.7. The Revenue Inspector having submitted a
report that the land was unfit for cultivation has
also not been looked into rendering the
impugned order bad in law.
7.8. The finding of Respondent No.3 that the land is
'D' Class land is without any merit. More so,
when this Court has held that the land to be 'E'
Class land, the earlier order dated 25.07.1977
had been challenged before this Court in
W.P.No.19580-81/1979, W.P.No.62472/2010
and C.P.No.505/2012, which came to be
converted to W.P.No.103302/2015. This Court,
having observed that the land is 'E' Class land,
the Assistant Commissioner could not have held
otherwise.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
7.9. His submission is that, knowing fully well of the
pendency of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner
and his family, the Deputy Commissioner had
illegally allotted the land to third parties. The
said allotment is bad in law. Inasmuch as 'E'
Class land could not have been so allotted and
no such allotment could have been made without
notice having been issued to the Petitioner.
7.10. On these grounds, he submits that the above
petition is required to be allowed and the relief
sought for to be granted.
8. Smt. Nagarathna S. Pattar, learned counsel appearing
for the impleading applicants, submits that:
8.1. The impleading applicants are the allottees of
land for the purpose of agriculture out of the
land claimed by the Petitioner in all amounting to
48 persons.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
8.2. She submits that the land has been allotted to
them for agriculture purposes and as such they
are required to be heard in the matter. In
furtherance of which they were heard.
8.3. Her submission is that allotment of land having
been made by Deputy Commissioner. The
impleading applicants were not aware of any
pending proceedings filed by the Petitioner and
all his family members. The pendency or
otherwise of those proceedings cannot come in
the way of the allotment made in favour of the
impleading applicants numbering 48.
8.4. The Deputy Commissioner having passed an
order, the impleading applicants being granted
the land, being in occupation of the property
their possession cannot be disturbed. Pendency
of the Petitioner's application has no bearing
insofar as the allotment made in favour of the
impleading applicants.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA would submit that:
9.1. The land has been granted in favour of 48
persons, who are the impleading applicants, they
being landless persons. Though writ petition was
filed, there being no stay order, the Respondents
have acted on the same and the Deputy
Commissioner having allotted the property
cannot be found fault with.
9.2. Merely because the writ petition was filed before
this Court, there was no need for the Deputy
Commissioner not to proceed with allotment to
landless laborers.
9.3. Insofar as the RTCs for the year 1999-2000 are
concerned, nowhere it is mentioned that the land
is E Class land and the name of the Government
having been entered in the RTCs on 25.07.1977,
the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised
his rights and powers under the KLR Act, 1961.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
9.4. With regard to the report submitted by the
Revenue Inspector, he submits that merely
because the Petitioner has not used the land for
cultivation purposes, the same cannot result in a
conclusion that the land is uncultivable. Hence,
he submits that the writ petition is required to be
dismissed.
10. Heard Sri Prithvi K., learned counsel for the Petitioner,
Sri.T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for Respondents
No.1 to 4, Smt. Nagaratna S. Pattar, learned counsel
for impleading applicants and perused papers.
11. The points that would arise for consideration of this
Court are:
1) Whether 'E' Class land could be
considered for the purpose of
declaring excess land in terms of
Section 63 of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961?
2) When an application is pending
before the Assistant Commissioner
under Form No. 11, could the Deputy
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
Commissioner allot the land to any
other person or persons for
agricultural activities?
3) Whether the rejection of Form No.11
filed by the Petitioner is in
accordance with law?
4) Whether the allotment of land in
favour of 48 applicants is in
accordance with law?
5) what order?
12. I answer the above points as under:
13. ANSWER TO POINT No.1:- Whether 'E' Class land
could be considered for the purpose of declaring
excess land in terms of Section 63 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961?
13.1. Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961, is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"63. Ceiling on land.--(1) No person who is not a
member of a family or who has no family and no family
shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, be entitled
to hold, whether as land owner, landlord or tenant or as a
mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one
capacity and partly in another, land in excess of the
ceiling area.
(2) The ceiling area for a person who is not a member of
a family or who has no family or for a family shall be ten
units:
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
Provided that in the case of a family consisting of more
than five members the ceiling area shall be ten units plus
an additional extent of two
units for every member in excess of five, so however that
the ceiling area shall not exceed twenty units in the
aggregate.
(2A) The ceiling area for a person who is tenant under
clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 5 shall be forty
units.
(3) In the case of a family the ceiling area shall be applied
to the aggregate of the lands held by all the members of
the family, including the 'stridhana' land.
(4) In calculating the extent of land held by a person who
is not a member of a family but is a member of a joint
family and also in calculating, the extent of land held by a
member of a family who is also a member of a joint
family, the share of such member in the lands held by a
joint family shall be taken into account and aggregated
with the lands, if any, held by him separately and for this
purpose such share shall be deemed to be the extent of
land which would be allotted to such person had there
been a partition of the lands held by the joint family.
(5) In respect of lands owned or held under a private
trust,--
(a) where the trust is revocable by the author of the trust,
such lands shall be deemed to be held by such author or
his successor in interest; and
(b) in other cases, such lands shall be deemed to be held
by the beneficiaries of the trust in proportion to their
respective interests in such trust or the income derived
therefrom.
Explanation.--Where a trust is partly private and partly
public this sub-section shall apply only to lands covered
by that part of the assets of the trust which is relatable to
the private trust.
(6) In calculating the extent of land held by a person who
is not a member of a family or who has no family or by a
member of a family, the share of such person or member
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
in the lands held by a co-operative farm shall be taken
into account.
(7) (a) No educational, religious or charitable institution
or society or trust, of a public nature, capable of holding
property, formed for an educational, religious or
charitable purpose shall hold land except where the
income from the land is appropriated solely for the
institution or the society or the trust concerned. Where
the land is so held by such institution, society or trust, the
ceiling area shall be twenty units.
(b) If any question arises whether the income from the
land is solely appropriated for the institution, society or
trust, it shall be decided by the prescribed Authority. The
decision of the prescribed Authority shall be final. Where
the prescribed Authority decides that the income is not so
appropriated, the land held by the institution, society or
trust shall be deemed to be surplus land and the
provisions of sections 66 to 76 shall, so far as may be,
apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State
Government of such land. The provisions of this sub-
section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in this
Act.
(8) (a) No sugar factory shall hold land except solely for
purpose of research or seed farm or both. Where land is
held by a sugar factory for such purpose the ceiling area
shall be fifty units.
(b) If any question arises whether any land held by a
sugar factory is solely used for the purpose of research or
seed farm or both, the decision of the prescribed
Authority shall be final and the land not held for the said
purpose shall be deemed to be surplus land and the
provisions of sections 66 to 76 shall, so far as may be,
apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State
Government of such land. The provisions of this sub-
section shall have effect notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act.
(9) In the case of any person holding land cultivated by
plantation crops, the ceiling area in respect of other land
held by him shall be determined taking into consideration,
the agricultural land referred to in item (ii) of the
Explanation to section 104.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
(10) Notwithstanding anything in the preceeding sub-
section, if any person has,--
(i) after the 18th November 1961 and before the 24th
January 1971 transferred any land the extent of which if
added to the other land retained by him could have been
deemed to be surplus land before the date of
commencement of the Amendment Act; or
(ii) after the 24th January 1971 transferred any land,
otherwise than by partition or by donation to the 2
Karnataka Boodan Yagna Board established under the
Karnataka Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1963 Karnataka Act 34 of
1963 or by sale to the tenant of such land in conformity
with any law for the time being in force, then in
calculating the ceiling area which that person is entitled to
hold, the area so transferred shall be taken into account
and the land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated shall
be deemed to be in excess of the ceiling area
notwithstanding that the land remaining with him may not
in fact be in excess of the ceiling area.
If by reason of such transfer the person's holding is less
than the area so calculated to be in excess of the ceiling
area, then all his lands shall be deemed to be surplus land
and the provisions of sections 66 to 76 shall, as far as
may be, apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State
Government of such excess land.
Explanation.--For purposes of this sub-section the land
shall be deemed to have been transferred if it has been
transferred by act of parties (whether by sale, gift,
mortgage with possession, exchange, lease or any other
kind of disposition made inter vivos.)"
13.2. In terms of Section 63, the ceiling for any person
is 10 units. In the present case, it is not the
number of units which is important but the
nature of the land which is required to be
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
considered. The word 'land', which has been
used in Section 63, would have to be considered
with reference to Sub-Section (18) of Section 2
of the KLR Act, 1961. There is no separate
definition of agricultural land in the KLR Act,
1961. Though 'agriculture' has been defined
under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the KLR
Act, 1961, the 'land' is defined as agricultural
land. That is to say, land which is used or
capable of being used for agricultural purposes
or purposes subservient thereto, including
horticultural land, forest land, garden land,
pasture land, plantation, and tope but does not
include house-site or land exclusively used for
non-agriculture purposes.
13.3. Thus, applying the definition of 'land', it is clear
that the land has to be agricultural land, which is
used or capable of being used for agricultural
purposes. If the land is not used or capable of
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
being used for agricultural purposes, the same
would not come within the meaning, definition,
ambit, and purview of Section 63 of the KLR Act,
1961.
13.4. The RTC's which have been produced by the
Petitioner categorically indicate that the land is
not capable of being used for agricultural
purposes and has been classified as 'E'
Class/Category land. The classification of land is
made under (Schedule-I, Part - A) of the KLR
Act, 1961, whereunder a 'land' can be classified
under the following classifications:
Classification of Lands
A Class Lands having facilities for assured
irrigation from such Government
Canals and Government Tanks as are
²[x x x]2 capable of supplying water
for growing two crops of paddy ³[or
one crop of sugarcane] in a year.
B Class i. Lands having facilities for assured
irrigation from such Government
Canals and Government Tanks as
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
are ?[x x x] capable of supplying
water for growing only one crop of
paddy in a year.
ii. Lands irrigated by such lift
irrigation projects constructed and
maintained by the State
Government as are ?[x x x] capable
of supplying water for growing two
crops of paddy? [or one crop of
sugarcane] in a year.
C Class i. Lands irrigated from any
Government sources of irrigation,
including lift irrigation projects
constructed and maintained by
Government other than those
coming under A Class and B
Class.
ii. Lands on which paddy crop can
be raised or areca crop is grown
with the help of rain water.
iii. Lands irrigated by lifting water
from a river or Government canal
or Government tank where the
pumping installation or other
devise for lifting water is provided
and maintained by the land
owner.
Note:--
(1) Lands having facilities for irrigation
from a Government source where the
system of water supply is suitable for
growing only light irrigated crop
namely, crops other than paddy and
sugarcane shall come under this class.
(2) Lands growing irrigated garden
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
crop will come under Classes 'A', 'B' or
'C' as the case may be depending upon
the source of irrigation and the system
of water supply.
D Class Lands classified as dry but not having
any irrigation facilities from a
Government source.
Note:- Lands growing paddy or garden
crops not coming under A Class, B
Class or C Class shall belong to this
class.
13.5. A perusal of the above, it is seen that it is only
land that is classified as A, B, C and D, are those
that could be used for agricultural purposes.
Class 'E' lands not being part of the above
classification are those which cannot be used for
agricultural purposes. That being the case, Class
'E' land would not come within the definition of
land under Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the
KLR Act, 1961, and in turn would not come
within the purview of Section 63 of the KLR Act,
1961.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
13.6. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that 'E'
Class land cannot be taken into consideration for
determining excess land held by any person or
family under Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1961.
14. ANSWER TO POINT No.2:- Whether when an
application is pending before the Assistant
Commissioner under Form No. 11, could the
Deputy Commissioner allot the land to any other
person or persons for agricultural activities?
14.1. Much has been sought to be made out by learned
AGA that though Form No.11 had been filed by
the Petitioner and his family members, there is
no order of stay in the said proceedings, and as
such, the Deputy Commissioner has gone ahead
with allotting the land to the impleading
applicants.
14.2. The only ground on which learned AGA has
sought to contend is that there is no interim
order which had been passed in the proceedings
which had been filed.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
14.3. What the learned AGA has lost sight of is the
aspect of lis pendens which would equally apply
to the present proceedings inasmuch as it is only
by way of a writ petition that the Petitioner could
have challenged the order of rejecting Form
No.11 and any action taken by the Deputy
Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner
vide such proceedings are pending would be
subject to the orders passed in those
proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner or the
Assistant Commissioner cannot be heard to say
that since there was no order of stay, they have
gone ahead and passed orders. Since they have
passed orders, the same cannot be disturbed.
When any proceedings are pending before any
particular Authority, if an action is taken by any
Authority as regards the land subject matter of
those proceedings, any such action, needless to
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
say, would be subject to the result of those
proceedings.
14.4. In the present matter the Deputy Commissioner
on the ground that there is no stay has gone
ahead and allotted the property to the
impleading applicants. Respondent No.3-
Assistant Commissioner has on the ground of the
Deputy Commissioner having allotted the land to
the impleading applicants, contending that the
said allotment has not been challenged has
dismissed Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner.
14.5. There cannot be greater injustice which could
have been meted out to the Petitioner than that
done by the Deputy Commissioner and the
Assistant Commissioner, each relying on the
others orders.
14.6. As indicated supra, since Form No.11 was filed
by the Petitioner and pending before the
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy
Commissioner ought to have stayed his hands
and not allotted the lands to the impleading
applicants and thereby creating a further
complication of raising a hope in those
impleading applicants that they would be granted
the land which they could make use of.
14.7. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that merely
because there was no stay order in the
proceedings in Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner
before the Assistant Commissioner the Deputy
Commissioner could not have gone ahead and
allotted the lands to the impleading applicants.
15. ANSWER TO POINT No.3:- Whether the rejection
of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner is in
accordance with law?
15.1. The only reason why the Assistant Commissioner
has rejected the Form No.11 filed by the
Petitioner is that the Petitioner has not
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
challenged the allotment made in favour of the
impleading applicants. Be that as it may, it is not
in dispute that the land is the 'E' Class land and,
was only in the year 1999-2000 the classification
got removed from the RTCs.
15.2. The report of the Revenue Inspector is also not
in dispute where the Revenue Inspector has
indicated that the land is 'E' Class land, which
has not been put to agricultural use.
15.3. The photographs which have been produced also
indicate that the land has not been put to
agricultural use either by the Petitioner or the
impleading applicants.
15.4. On a specific query being posed to the learned
counsel for the impleading applicants as to
whether they are carrying out agricultural
activities and if any document has been
produced or can be produced by them in relation
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
thereto, she has categorically indicated that
there are no such agricultural activities being
carried on by the impleading applicants.
15.5. Looked at from all angles, the documents which
are on record would categorically indicate that
the land has not been put to agricultural use.
The land in question is not agricultural land, but
in fact it is 'E' category land, which would not
come within the purview of land under Sub-
Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961.
Thereby, it was but required for the Assistant
Commissioner to allow Form No.11 filed by the
Petitioner since the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961, would not be applicable to the land other
than agricultural land.
15.6. Thus, I answer point No.3 by holding that the
rejection of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner is
not in accordance with law.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
16. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4:-Whether the allotment
of land in favour of 48 applicants is in
accordance with law?
16.1. This aspect has been dealt with in answer to my
earlier points. Suffice it to say that allotment
could not have been made by the Deputy
Commissioner while the application of the
Petitioner was pending. Apart there from, the
land not being fit for agricultural purposes, no
allotment could have been made by the Deputy
Commissioner and the land has also not been
used for agricultural purposes by the impleading
applicants.
16.2. Thus, I answer point No.4 by holding that
respondent No.3 could not have allotted the land
in question for agricultural purposes to the
impleading applicants.
17. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: What Order?
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636
WP No. 100771 of 2025
HC-KAR
17.1. In view of my answers to the above points,
I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 08.06.2007, passed by Respondent No.3, allotting the land to the impleading applicants, is quashed.
iii. The order dated 10.01.2025 bearing No.LRM:(66):SR:SR:539+451 passed by Respondent No.3, rejecting Form No. 11 of the Petitioner at Annexure-L, is quashed. Consequently, the declaration filed by the Petitioner in Form No.11 dated 28.12.1974, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/1 and Sy.No.240/2D/2 of Hangaragi Village, Belagavi Taluk and District, is allowed.
iv. A mandamus is issued directing Respondents Nos.2 to 4 to enter the name of the Petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/1 and Sy.No.240/2D/2 in Column Nos.9 & 12 of the Record of Rights by deleting the name of the
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 HC-KAR impleading applicants within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
v. Repondents No.2 to 4 are also directed to allot alternate land to the impleading applicants as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3