Karnataka High Court
Mahananda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 19 August, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4767
WP No. 202398 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.202398 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
MAHANANDA W/O LATE KASHINATH,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O H. NO.20-637, KALLUR ROAD,
VEERBHADRESHWAR COLONY, HUMNABAD,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ANNARAYA M.PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
THEJAS KUMAR N
BIDAR-585401.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR-585401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
TAHSILDAR OFFICE, CHITTAGUPPA,
TQ. CHITTAGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4767
WP No. 202398 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Annaraya M.Patil., counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.Sheshadri Jaishankar.M., AGA for the respondents have
appeared in person.
2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking following
reliefs:
A. Certiorari to quash the order of Mutation
M.R.H9/2019-20 dated 10.06.2020 as per order in
SR/LND/CR/06/2019-20 dated 06.01.2020 and ROR
in the year 2020 to 2025 in respect of land
Sy.No.42/* measuring 02 Acre 03 Guntas situated at
Hipparaga Village, Chittaguppa Hobli, Tq.
Chittaguppa, District Bidar and direct the
respondents to delete the name of State Government
and restore the name of petitioner in all revenue
records in Column No.9 and 12 vide Annexure-C1.
B. And Mutation M.R.:H12/2019-20 dated 13.08.2020
as per order in SR/LND/CR/06/2019/20 dated
06.01.2020 and ROR in the year 2020 to 2025 in
respect of land Sy.No.43/*/1 measuring 34 Guntas
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4767
HC-KAR
situated at Hipparagi Village, Chittaguppa Hobli, Tq.
Chittaguppa, District Bidar and direct the
respondents to delete the name of State Government
and restore the name of petitioner in all revenue
records in Column No.9 and 12 vide Annexure-C.
3. 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
Pashamiyan 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.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4767
HC-KAR
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 that the State Government has got
the power to forfeit the land used for non-agricultural
purposes. However, the State authorities are entitled to
initiate suitable action as is provided under Section 96 of
the Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
passed by respondent No.1 deleting the name of the
petitioner from the revenue records and directing the
name of the State Government to be entered into revenue
records is without any basis and cannot be traced to any
statutory power as contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
5. This Court, in similar circumstances had
allowed W.P.No.201500/2022 and had directed the
restoration of the revenue entries.
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed
and the impugned order passed by respondent No.1
bearing No.KAM/LND/CR-06/2019-20 dated nil-2-2020 is
quashed. The respondents authorities are directed to
restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.
However, this shall not come in the way of respondent
No.1 initiating suitable action as provided under Section
96 of the Act, which shall be done within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the present writ petition also deserves to be allowed and
disposed of in terms of Pashamiyan's case (supra).
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4767
HC-KAR
5. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms
of the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2024
passed by this Court in Pashamiyan S/o.
Maheboobsab Ladaf Vs. The Deputy
Commissioner and two others, in
W.P.No.200937/2024 (KLR-RR/SUR);
(ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-C and C1
dated 06.01.2020 are hereby quashed;
(iii) The respondents are directed to restore the
name of the petitioner in the revenue records,
within a period of four months from the receipt
of copy of this order;
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favor of the respondents
to take appropriate legal action against the
petitioner, subject to all just exceptions under
Section 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964 and in accordance with law.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4767
HC-KAR
Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending
interlocutory application, if any, are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
