Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
The formation or closure of such roads without following due legal procedures, including proper survey and notification, can be challenged legally.
Remedy under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act:
Analysis and Conclusion:The Karnataka Land Revenue Act provides a structured mechanism for challenging the closure or illegal formation of roads, including appeals under Section 49 and revisions under Section 136. When a Nakashé road is closed or formed unlawfully, affected parties should first pursue these statutory remedies before approaching courts via writ petitions. The Act emphasizes following due process, including proper survey, notification, and opportunity to be heard, to resolve disputes regarding Nakashé roads effectively.
References:- ["K. DODDAHANUMAIAH VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE - Karnataka"]- ["SRI RAJESH B vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["MR NAVEEN KUMAR M vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["SRI. HANUMAIAH T vs THE SPECIAL THASILDAR - Karnataka"]- ["MR. VARUN RAO B vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["A HANUMANTHA CHAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["RAMESH S/O DUNDAPPA IRAGAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["SRI N RAGHUMURTHY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"]- ["THE TAHSILDAR vs THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER -II - Karnataka"]
Imagine relying on a vital access road like Nakashe Road for your daily commute, farming, or business, only to find it suddenly closed. This is a common grievance in Karnataka, where public cart roads or paths can be extinguished due to urban development or disuse. The question arises: Nakashe road is closed, what is the remedy under which provision of Karnataka Land Revenue Act?
This blog post delves into the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLRA), focusing on Sections 67 and 68, which provide mechanisms for disputes and road closures. We'll outline remedies, procedures, and insights from case law. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under the KLRA, roads—especially public cart roads—are protected but can be closed if deemed unnecessary. Section 67 addresses disputes over land and roads, empowering revenue authorities like the Tahsildar to inquire and resolve issues. Section 68 specifically governs the extinguishment of public cart roads.
Closures often occur in urbanizing areas where villages merge into municipalities, rendering old paths obsolete. However, affected parties have rights to object and challenge such decisions.
Section 67 empowers the Tahsildar or revenue authorities to handle disputes on possession, boundaries, and rights over land and roads. It allows local inquiries to protect public and private rights.
Key features:- Resolves conflicts through evidence-based inquiries.- Ensures maintenance or restoration of essential access routes.- Protects statutory rights of landholders if usage is proven.
In practice, if a road closure affects your land access, file a dispute under Section 67 for an official investigation. Courts have emphasized government inspections in such matters K. KRISHNAPPA VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 2001 0 Supreme(Kar) 477.
This is the cornerstone provision for road closures. The government can declare a cart road extinct if it's no longer used publicly or due to development.
Step-by-step process under Section 68:- Section 68(1): Initial notification declaring the road closed.- Section 68(2): Gazette publication with opportunity for objections.- Section 68(3): Review of objections received.- Section 68(4): Final notification if satisfied.- Section 68(5): Allotment of extinguished land, often with public notices.
The implication? Government discretion is wide, but procedural compliance is mandatory. Without it, closures can be challenged. In urban contexts, courts uphold decisions if procedures are followed Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department - 2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 757.
If affected by a closure, several remedies exist:
In one case, the court held: when the government issues a notification under Section 68(1) and no objections are received, the subsequent extinguishment of a cart road is valid... unless the petitioners prove that the road is still used or indispensable for cultivation Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department - 2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 757.
Other precedents reinforce these remedies:- Authorities must verify public road existence before decisions, as in a case where the Tahsildar reported a public road under Section 71, stressing speaking orders Hennur Properties Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 852.- For access issues like pipelines across lands, courts direct revenue officials to act under KLRA H N HOOVAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439038.- Declaratory suits are maintainable for record corrections, as such a suit is maintainable and it is one of the remedies provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Sharada Ramakrishna Naik VS Sannamma.
These cases highlight that evidence of continued use or necessity strengthens your claim.
If facing a road closure like Nakashe Road:1. Gather evidence: Photos, witness statements, RTC extracts proving usage.2. Check notifications: Review Gazette for Section 68 proceedings.3. File objections promptly: Within the stipulated time.4. Approach Tahsildar under Section 67: For inquiry if no formal closure process.5. Escalate to writ court: If procedures ignored or malice alleged.
Recommendations:- Act swiftly—delays weaken claims, as seen in registration refusals due to non-compliance R. Sampath VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1634.- Authorities must issue reasoned orders; lack thereof invites judicial remand Hennur Properties Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 852.
Urban development often justifies closures, but public interest must balance individual rights. Courts rarely interfere without proof of procedural lapse Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department - 2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 757.
Related provisions in KLRA and Karnataka Land Reforms Act intersect:- Section 95(3) allows Deputy Commissioners to refuse conversions violating land laws Staney Herald D Souza S/O Late Maurice D Souza VS State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Secretary, Revenue Department - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 588.- Sub-Registrars verify revenue records before registration, ensuring compliance R. Sampath VS State Of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1634.
These underscore revenue authorities' role in land matters, extending to road disputes.
Sections 67 and 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act offer structured remedies for road closures. While government authority is broad, objections, inquiries, and writs provide checks. Cases like Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department - 2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 757 and K. KRISHNAPPA VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 2001 0 Supreme(Kar) 477 show courts prioritize procedure and evidence.
Key takeaways:- Prove road necessity to succeed.- Follow timelines for objections.- Seek professional advice early.
Stay informed on land rights to protect your access. For personalized guidance, contact a local advocate specializing in Karnataka revenue laws.
References:- K. KRISHNAPPA VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 2001 0 Supreme(Kar) 477 – Writ on land disputes and road formation.- Chinnaswamy Reddy VS State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Revenue Department - 2008 0 Supreme(Kar) 757 – Extinguishment under Section 68.- Hennur Properties Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Karnataka - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 852 – Public road verification.- Sharada Ramakrishna Naik VS Sannamma – Maintainability of suits under KLRA.- H N HOOVAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 439038 – Permissions across lands.
#KarnatakaLandLaw, #RoadClosureRemedy, #KLRA
When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent herein at the instance of some villagers inimically disposed towards the petitioner, without initiating any proceedings as provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and rules and even without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, to put forth his grievance ... He has not produced any authenticated document to establish that the land in question is not nakashe road and it is not passing through sy. nos. 33 and 34 of the....
Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that as against the impugned proceedings, appeal would lie under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 3. ... by VIJAYA P Location: … PETITIONERS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. ... NAZARBAD MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO TAHSILDAR OFFICE, MY....
The order impugned is an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. ... In my view, as against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, the statute has provided a Revision under Section 136(3) of the Act. The petitioner would, therefore, have to avail of the said remedy. ... STATE OF KARNATAKA REVE....
Learned Additional Government Advocate raises a preliminary objection that the order impugned is an order passed by respondent No.1-Tahsildar, invoking the powers conferred under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). ... If the petitioner is aggrieved of the same, the appeal remedy is provided under Section 136(2) of the Act and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 3. ... REVENUE#H....
Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 has held that having regard to Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, that in normal circumstances where there are arrears of land revenue, it is not the ... In all other cases, in terms of the amended provision, which came into effect from 01.04.1988. ... ROAD, BENGALUR....
It is noticed that the order passed, which is impugned herein at Annexure-K is the order passed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. As under Section 50 of the Act, a second appeal would lie, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail such a remedy. ... THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR Location: HIGH COURTOF OF LAND RECORDS AND KARNATAKA SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT DC OFFICE ROAD PES COLLEGE CAMPUS MANDYA DISTRIC....
preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative efficacious remedy available for the petitioner under Section 49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 3. ... ROAD, RANGOLI HALLA HASSAN, KARNATAKA - 573 201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKLESHPUR SUB-DIVISION HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 573 134. 4. ... THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RE....
PRESIDENT REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960. ... Learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner has not considered whether the lands could be granted, having regard to the bar found in Rule 108(I) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. 4. ... Land Revenue Act, 1964, on the ground that the grant said to have been made in favour of the 3rd respondent- Lions Club of Sarakki is ....
Any attempt to limit the scope of enquiry under Section 95(3) would render the provision redundant and defeat the very purpose of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 14. ... The refusal to grant conversion strictly aligns with the powers vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. ... The petitioner’s argument that an enquiry as to whether granting a conversion order would violate the provisi....
LAND REVENUE ACT AND THEREBY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONSTRUCT THE WATER COURSE. ... Land Revenue Act and thereby to permit the petitioner to lay pipeline from the bore well installed in his land in Sy.No.55/3 of Yalavatti Village to his another land in Sy.No.65/6 of Yalavatti Village measuring to an extent of 3 acres 16 guntas. ... This Court vide order dated 01.02.2021 directed the Tahsildar to file statement of objections positively with referenc....
(iv) Is the Sub-Registrar required to ascertain from the records if the vendor's name is found mentioned in the revenue records before proceeding with the registration of the property? (iii) Would the requirement under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act be required to be fulfilled in order to proceed for registration? Act, 1961 have various provisions relating to the transfer of land. 10.2. Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which were inserted by Act No.1 of 1974 with effect from 01.03.1974 as it stood at the time of ....
On the basis of the same, the fourth respondent has written a letter to the Tahasildar vide letter dated 25.08.2016 vide Annexure-F seeking for the report whether there is any public road existing in that survey number. The fourth respondent has independently exercised his power and passed the order which is impugned herein. Pursuant to that, the Tahasildar has submitted a report on 20.03.2017 stating that there is a public road existing and he refers to Deputy Commissioner's order that the Deputy Commissioner, by exercising the power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue ....
Mr. Raghavendra Rao for the plaintiff is, in our opinion, justified in contending that such a suit is maintainable and it is one of the remedies provided under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In this case, the plaintiff has been able to establish that all the parties including himself got the registration of occupancy rights as Kadim tenants in respect of lands in their respective holdings, but under a wrong Hissa number of S.No.139, that mistake was perpetuated even in the order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, because there were no disputes before him and there were no rival ....
“Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the record of rights maintained under this Chapter, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.” Mr. Raghavendra Rao for the plaintiff is, in our opinion, justified in contending that such a suit is maintainable and it is one of the remedies provided under....
Sri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of 5th respondent opposed the writ petition by contending that the Government records are tampered at the instance of the petitioner. 3. Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued in support of the writ petition by contending that subsequently inserted provision i.e., Section 94-A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is not applicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the application is filed much prior to 20th March 1991, on which date, Section 94-A is inserted in Karnataka ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
