Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22342
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
JYOTI MULIMANI, J
SYED WASEEM AHMED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.202356 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SHIVAPUTRA S.UDBALKAR, SRI.SANGOLI NAGANNA
For the Respondents: SRI.SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR
Administrative actions affecting land rights must follow due process and have statutory authority; otherwise, they can be quashed by the court.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 95 and 96 - Quashing of order deleting name from revenue records - Petitioner's land was improperly forfeited for non-agricultural use without due process - Court emphasizes the requirement for proper legal basis in such administrative actions. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - The Court restates that it can quash administrative actions lacking statutory authority and restore rightful entries if proper procedures are not followed. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims ownership of land later entered under the State's name without notice or opportunity to contest, which violates due process. The petitioner argues that in a similar case, restoration was ordered by the Court.
Findings of Court:
The quashing of the order was justified due to the lack of statutory power for such actions, aligning with previous court rulings establishing due process rights.
Issues: The main issue was whether the deletion of the petitioner’s land ownership was executed without proper notice and statutory authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that administrative actions affecting land rights must be based on legal authority and due process must be observed, supporting the restoration of the petitioner's revenue entries.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of ownership must be backed by legal process. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. administrative actions affecting ownership require statutory backing. (Para 4 , 5) |
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:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR-585401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585327.
4. TAHASILDAR, TQ. CHITTGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585401.
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 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 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 tha
