Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Sri Mohammed Rafeeq S/O Abdul Razak ... on 4 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB
WA No. 100167 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100167 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS
DHARWAD - 580 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, AGA)
AND:
SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ,
S/O. ABDUL RAZAK PANCH,
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL,
R/O. URDU SCHOOL ROAD,
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT AT POST: UPPIN-BETAGERI, DHARWAD,
NARAYANKAR TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-581 206.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103552/2023, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB
WA No. 100167 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
The appellants have filed the present appeal
impugning an order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.103552/2023, whereby the petition preferred by
the respondent was allowed and the order dated
30.03.2022, cancelling his license under Rule
46-K of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1966
[hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'], was set aside. The
operative part of the said order reads as under:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) Annexure-L dated 30.03.2022 passed by
respondent No.1 is quashed.
iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to hold an
enquiry after giving an opportunity to the
petitioner and thereafter, proceed to pass the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB
HC-KAR
order by following the procedure as contemplated
under Rule 46-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966 within three months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit a sum
of Rs.10,000/- personally, to the High Court Legal
Services Committee, Dharwad within 30 days,
failing which, Member Secretary is directed to
report the same to this court.
v) Learned HCGP is directed to forward the
certified copy of this order to respondent No.1
forthwith, for information and for necessary action.
2. The learned Single Judge has faulted the
appellants in not conducting an enquiry as required under
Rule 46-K of the said Rules, despite being directed to do
so. It is the appellants' case that, in fact, the respondent
was afforded an opportunity of being heard as required
under Rule 46-K of the said Rules.
3. The impugned order proceeds on the
submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB
HC-KAR
appellant, that the said procedure was not followed.
Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order reads as under:
"4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the
petition submitted that the verbatim of
Annexure-L is not similar to Annexure-H.
However, he fairly concedes that procedure as
contemplated for holding enquiry was not
followed by the respondents."
4. This Court is further informed that, pursuant to
the direction issued in terms of the impugned order, the
respondent was given an opportunity of being heard and
an order dated 29.05.2024 has been passed reinstating
him. Therefore, the grievance of the respondent does not
survive. The question raised in the present appeal is
rendered academic in view of the subsequent events.
5. The only grievance that survives is the levy of
cost of ₹10,000/-. We note that Rule 46-K of the Rules
does not expressly provide for conduct of any enquiry. It
expressly requires that an opportunity of being heard be
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB
HC-KAR
afforded to the delinquent person against whom an
adverse order is contemplated. According to the
appellants, the said opportunity was afforded to the
respondent.
6. In view of the above, we find merit in the
contentions canvassed by the appellants. Accordingly, the
direction to deposit costs of ₹10,000/- before the High
Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, is set aside.
The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP
CT-MCK
