Kumki rights are not absolute and can be curtailed for public interest under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

JUDGMENT :

1. The captioned appeal is filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 6.2.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.50200-50205/2014.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The appellants are claiming Kumki rights in agricultural lands bearing survey No. 96/1A. The appellants claim that they are in possession and enjoyment of a certain portion of Survey No. 96/1 as kumkidhars and accordingly, they have submitted an application before the competent authority seeking regularization of their kumki rights. The appellants' claim that their applications are pending for consideration. This being the factual matrix, the Deputy Commissioner, Mangaluru, issued a notice on 13.1.2003 informing the appellants that kumki rights, if any, stand extinguished as it has resolved to form house sites in government lands to allot the same under Ashraya Scheme to the weaker sections of the society. The Deputy Commissioner under the said notice called upon the appellants to file their objections, if any. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the notice approached this Court by filing writ petition in W.P.8849-8858/2003, which was disposed directing respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellants herein.

3. The appellants grievance is that 2nd respondent- Deputy Commissioner contrary to the directions of this Court without holding proper enquiry passed the order and thereby extinguished the kumki privilege as enjoyed by the appellants. Against the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal(KAT). The KAT dismissed the appeal and the same is confirmed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that respondent No. 2- Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to withdraw the kumki privilege and this aspect has not been examined by the Tribunal as well by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned counsel further placing reliance on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mysuru and others vs. K. Chandrashekar Adiga and another AIR 1976 SC 853 would submit to this Court that though the facts in the judgment cited supra are different but however the ratio decidendi would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. He would further submit to this Court that the learned Single Judge erroneously applied the ratio laid down in the case of K.Sham Bhat and others .vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary, to Government Revenue Department, Bangalore and others ILR 2003 KAR 3026 and therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that kumki holders have no right over the kumki lands is erroneous and would warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

5. Repelling the contentions urged by counsel appearing for appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate would submit to this Court that Kumkidhar has no pre-existing right over the kumki lands and kumkidhar is only granted certain privileges including right to collect leaves, manure and firewood for domestic and residential requirements and therefore, he would submit to this Court that these privileges are subject to the control of the Deputy Commissioner and therefore, they cannot be equated with the right of the property. To counter the claim made by the appellants, the learned Additional Government Advocate would place reliance in Shambhat's case(supra). Placing reliance on this judgment, he would submit that it is well within the authority of the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under Section 79(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "KLR Act") to extinguish kumki privilege. He would conclude his arguments by stating that individual right of appellant needs to be examined in