1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.200554/2021 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

Mohammad Ajimuddin S/o Mohiuddin

Age: 67 years, Occ: Agriculture

R/o Chitguppa

Tq. Chitaguppa

Dist. Bidar-585 405

... Petitioner

(By Sri Preetam Deulgaonkar, Advocate)

AND:

1.

The State of Karnataka

By its Secretary to Government

Department of Revenue

M.S.Building, Bengaluru-01

2.

The Deputy Commissioner

Bidar District

Bidar – 585 401

3.

The Assistant Commissioner

Bidar-585 401

4.

The Tahsildar

Dist. Bidar-585 401

2

5.

The Revenue Inspector

Chitguppa village

Tq. and Dist. Bidar-585 401

… Respondents

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ in

nature of certiorari & quash the order of respondent No.2

dated 06.02.2020 in file No.REV/LND/CR-06/2019-20

insofar as it relates to land Sy.No.142/13 measuring 2

acres 01 guntas and the land belonging to wife of the

petitioner Vasima Banu to the extent of 35 guntas in

Sy.No.142/1 totally measuring 3 acres 35 guntas situated

at Hudagi village, Tq.Humnabad, District Bidar and etc.,

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this

day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in

question the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the

respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Bidar whereby the

land

belonging

to

the

petitioner

in

Sy.No.142/13

measuring 2 acres 01 gunta and the land belonging to wife

of the petitioner Vasima Banu to the extent of 35 guntas in

Sy.No.142/1 both situated at Chitguppa taluka, Bidar

District are shown as the lands belonging to the State of

3

Karnataka. The petitioner and his wife claim to be the

absolute owners of the aforementioned land. The record of

rights also show the name of the petitioner and his wife as

the owners to the aforementioned extent of land.

2.

It transpires that without issuance of notice the

land belonging to them is now indicated as the land

belonging to the State Government by the respondent

No.4 directing the revenue entries to be made in the name

of the State of Karnataka in the place of entry in the name

of petitioner, without issuance of notice to the petitioner.

Identical issue is dealt with and decided by this Court in

W.P.No.226319/2020 wherein this Court had held as

follows:

"5.

Section 95 of the Karnataka

land

Revenue

Act,

provides

that

no

agricultural land can be utilized for non

agricultural purpose except without getting

the same converted in accordance with

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue

Act. Section 96 of the Act provides for

penalty for using the agricultural land for

other

purpose

without

permission.

The

Deputy Commissioner is therefore required

4

to ascertain whether any land assessed or

held for the purpose of agriculture is diverted

or used for any other purpose without his

permission. If such land is diverted, the

Deputy

Commissioner

is

entitled

to

summarily evict the occupant and the person

responsible for the diversion of the land and

the building or construction constructed

thereon shall be removed after serving

notice and the land can be forfeited. Under

section 96 (2), the Deputy Commissioner

may serve a prior notice on the person

responsible for the construction requiring

him to utilize the land for the original

purpose and to remove any construction or

to fill in excavation and to take such other

steps as required to render the land fit for

agriculture. The Deputy Commissioner is

also entitled to impose a penalty not

exceeding Rs.1,000/- for the contravention

of Section 95 and impose further penalty of

Rs.25/- per day.

6.

The Deputy Commissioner is

also entitl