Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
Asiamma W/o Ismail – Appellant
Versus
N.t.thomas S/o Thomas – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 38695 OF 2014 (KLR-RES)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SACHIDANANDA .K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. B.P. RADHA
Kumki privileges are inseparable from warg land ownership; executive orders cannot grant such rights without due legal process.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 94
(B) - Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - Rule 108(F) - Dispute over kumki land rights - Petitioner acquired title through registered partition deed and subsequent sale - Respondent No.1's claim to kumki land rejected as it lacked legal basis and proper inquiry - Court emphasized that kumki privileges are inseparable from ownership of warga land. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Legal principles - Kumki privileges cannot be exercised independently of warg land - Executive orders cannot curtail kumki rights without due process - Claims of unauthorized possession must meet specific eligibility criteria. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner asserts ownership of kumki land through a partition deed and subsequent transactions, while respondent No.1's claim is based on an executive order granting land without proper legal standing. The petitioner previously won a decree for possession against respondent No.1.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tahsildar's order granting kumki land to respondent No.1 was legally unsustainable and lacked proper inquiry into the nature of the land and legal framework.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Tahsildar had the authority to grant kumki land to respondent No.1 and the validity of the executive order under the KLR Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that kumki privileges are inherently linked to warg land ownership and cannot be granted independently; the Tahsildar's order was a gross misapplication of the law.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.
Please provide the actual legal document content within
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondent no.1's appeal (Para 4) |
| 2. application for land grant (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. arguments heard by the court (Para 6) |
| 4. cognizance of kumkidar's privileges (Para 8) |
| 5. examination of authority's actions (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. dispute origins and legal framework (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. writ petition allowed (Para 13) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the impugned order dated 20.11.2001 passed by respondent No.2/Tahsildar vide Annexure-B and the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Tahsildar vide Annexure-A.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
Petitioner asserts that he has acquired title in respect of Sy.No.31-1B along with Kumki land by virtue of the registered partition deed dated 25.1.2025. Petitioner sold the property in favour of respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 23.7.1990. Petitioner further argued that she re-purchased the land from respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 27.5.1991.
3. Pursuant to repurchase, respondent No.1 started asserting possessory rights over the kumki land attached to the warga land. This compelled petitioner to file the suit in O.S.No.179/1992 seeking possession of kumki land from respondent No.1. This said suit was decreed by judgment dated 29.2.2000.
4. Respondent No.1 preferred regular first appeal in RFA.No.24/2000. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
5. Respondent No.1, after suffering two decrees from the competent civil court, applied for grant of land before the Akrama-Sakrama Committee, where respondent No.2/Tahsildar serves as the Secretary. Invoking Section 94(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "KLR Act, 1964"), respondent No.2 issued an order on 20.11.2001 granting kumki land to respondent No.1. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, citing the petitioner's failure to contest or file objections before the Akrama-Sakrama Committee. This petition has therefore been filed.
6. The Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), and the counsel representing respondents No.2 and 3.
7. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, either today or on the previous hearing. The matter was adjourned to the present day as a final opportunity to enable respondent No.1 to present his arguments. However, even today, there is no representation. Given that this case dates back to 2004, the Court proceeds to decide the matter on its merits.
8. Before this Court adverts to the validity of the order under challenge, this Court deems fit to take cognizance of the law relating to kumkidar's privileges. In the case of Lawrence Mendonsa vs. The Assistant Commissioner , Kundapura, Dakshina Kannada, and others, [2000(4) Kar.L.J.292], the Co-ordinate Bench ruled that kumki privileges associated with kumki land are inherently linked to warg land and cannot be exercised independently. These privileges must be utilized in conjunction with warg land. Referring to the Land Grant Rules and the Standing Orders of the Madras Board, the Bench further emphasized that kumki privileges in kumki land are inseparable from warg land.
9. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petition land is the kumki land. Now, whether the authority invoking Section 94(B) of the KLR Act, 1964 could have granted this land to respondent No.1. It would be useful for this Court examine the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in the case ofK. Sham Bhat and another .vs. State of Karnataka and others , [2004(1) Kar.L.J. 490(FB)] . The Full Bench of this Court while examining the relevant Section 79(2) of the KLR Act, 1964 held that kumki rights cannot be curtailed, abridged or taken away by an executive order. Even if at all the revenue authorities intend to divert kumki privile
