[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri T N Hemanth on 16 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
W.A. No.148/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.148/2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Digitally signed VIDHANA SOUDHA
by ARSHIFA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BAHAR KHANAM BENGALURU-560001.
Location: High
Court Of 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Karnataka BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560009.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA)
AND:
SRI. T.N. HEMANTH
S/O LATE T.K. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.303, ENCON YAGNALAYA
82, 6TH MAIN ROAD
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM
MYSURU-570012.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SAMMITH S, ADV., FOR C/R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
W.A. No.148/2023
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.09.2022 PASSED IN WP No.59394/2016 BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISS THE SAID WP. ISSUE ANY
OTHER ORDER/DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM
FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 08.12.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.59394/2016 (KLR-RES).
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the respondent is the owner of the land bearing
Sy.No.73/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 9.08 guntas
of 'A' kharab land situated at Doddakallasandra Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
District. He sought conversion of 9.08 guntas of 'A'
kharab land. The appellant No.2 issued an endorsement
dated 01.02.2014 directing the respondent to pay
Rs.47,50,000/- i.e. the market value of 9.08 guntas of 'A'
kharab land. The respondent paid the said amount and
conversion order was issued which was later challenged
and a refund was sought. The learned Single Judge, after
considering the material or record directed the appellant
No.2 to refund the amount. Being aggrieved, the State is
in appeal.
3. Smt.Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the appellants
submits that the conversion sought by the respondent is
for 9½ guntas of 'A' kharab land and the State
Government is the owner of the said land. Hence, the
respondent is liable to pay the market value of the said
land as he would be using the said land as the owner. It is
submitted that the demand by the appellant No.2 to pay
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
the market value of the 'A' kharab land is pursuant to the
circular dated 16.09.1994 at Annexure-R1 and the
Government order dated 16.05.2018, wherein the
appellant No.1 had issued directions and guidelines to all
the Deputy Commissioners to collect the market value of
the kharab land, collect the conversion fees and
thereafter, consider the application for conversion.
However, this aspect has not been appreciated by the
learned Single Judge in its proper perspective. It is
further submitted that the respondent has agreed and paid
the market value of the kharab land and seeking refund of
the same after the conversion order has been passed is
impermissible as is evident from the letter dated
02.02.2013 at Annexure-R8. Hence, she seeks to allow
the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Phaneendra, learned Senior
counsel appearing for Sri.Sammith S., learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and
submits that the learned Single Judge, considering the law
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
laid down by this Court has recorded a clear finding that
the appellant No.2 cannot collect the market value of the
land for 'A' kharab land and directed to refund the amount.
It is submitted that the 'A' kharab land is an unarable land
that goes along with the cultivable land and for
conversion, the Authorities are entitled to collect only
conversion charges for 'A' kharab land and not the market
price. It is further submitted that if the kharab is 'B' phut
kharab, then the State is entitled to collect the market
price of 'B' phut kharab land and also the conversion fees
if the application is filed for conversion. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the following
judgments:
1. P.BHIMACHAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS.1
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS Vs. ISTAK
AHMAD MOHAMMAD SAHEB AND OTHERS2
3. L.A.KRISHNAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS3
1966 (2) Mys LJ 184
2015 SCC Online Kar 8640
2009 SCC Online Kar 38
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
Vs. SMT.G.ANURADHA4
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs.
L.A.KRISHNAPPA5
Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
Additional Government Advocate for the appellants, the
learned Senior counsel for the respondent, meticulously
perused the material available on record and the decisions
relied. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both the sides.
6. The writ petition was filed by the respondent
seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
to the appellant No.2 to refund a sum of Rs.47,50,000/-
collected for conversion of land in Sy.No.73/1 measuring
9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land situated at
Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, on the ground that this Court in the case of
W.A.No.3524 of 2009 dtd 26.07.2010
W.A.No.2274 of 2009 dtd 28.07.2010
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
L.A.KRISHNAPPA, referred supra has held that there
cannot be any demand for payment of market price for
phut 'A' kharab land where a conversion of land is sought
from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose. It is not in
dispute that the respondent is the owner of the land
bearing Sy.No.73/1 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and 9.08
guntas of 'A' kharab land situated at Doddakallasandra
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore Distrist. The respondent sought conversion of
9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The appellant No.2 issued
an endorsement dated 01.02.2014 directing the
respondent to pay Rs.47,50,000/- i.e. the market value of
9.08 guntas of 'A' kharab land which was paid and the
conversion order was issued. The respondent sought a
refund of the amount paid towards the market value and
sought for a writ of mandamus to the said effect.
7. It would be useful to refer to the decision of this
Court in the case of L.A.KRISHNAPPA referred supra.
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the said judgment are extracted
below for ready reference:
"4. The counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the relevant provisions under the Land Revenue
Rules, 1966 and the provisions of the Land Revenue
Act, 1964 would be Rule 21, which provides for
classification of lands. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 reads
as follows:--
"Rule 21. Classification:--
(1) ....................................................
(2) During the process of classification land
included as. unarable shall be treated as "Pot
Kharab" Pot Kharab lands may be classified as
follows:--
(a) That which is classified as unfit for
agriculture at the time of survey including the farm
building or threshing floors of the holder.
(b) That which is not assessed because, (i) it is
reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is
occupied by a road or recognized footpath or by a
tank or stream used by persons other than the
holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic
purposes (iii) used as burial ground or cremation
ground; (iv) assigned for village potteries."
It is stated that at the time of survey and
settlement of land records, the Pot Kharab portion
of the land in the survey number was so classified
as unarable under Rule 21(2)(a) and this is how it
has been referred to in the RTC extracts, which is
at Annexure-" A" to the petition
The counsel would then draw attention of this
Court to Rule 107 of the Rules, which is extracted
herein for ready reference:--
"Rule 107. Levy of fine for conversion of
agricultural and for non-agricultural use:-- The
amount of fine which may be levied under sub-
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
Section (7) of Section 95 shall be at the rates
specified in the table below, namely:--
Sl. Place Area Rate of fine
No in Rs. Per
square
meter
Residential
1 Bangalore Municipal Corporation 13-45
(Urban limits and all lands
District) within a distance of
18 km from the
corporation limits and
other places
The counsel would contend that it is therefore
clear that the conversion and fine prescribed do not
make any distinction between an arable portion of
land and un anarable portion of land. The petitioner
as an occupant of the land is entitled to all the
benefits that arises out of the land. Section 2(14) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act defines the word
"Land" as including the benefits that arise out of
land, and things attached to the earth, or
permanently fastened to anything attached to the
earth and also shares in, or charges on, the Revenue
or rent of villages or other defined areas." This
inclusive definition makes it clear that the petitioner
is entitled to rights in the total extent of land without
any reservation of any part being made in favour of
the Government. The Kharab Portion as classified
under Rule 21(2)(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act is therefore a benefit arising out of the land in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
the occupation of the petitioner. Rule 107 relating to
levy of fine of conversion of agricultural land does
not make any distinction between arable and
unarable portions of the land. In any event, it does
not prescribe any amount of fine based on the
market value of any portion of the land. Therefore,
the demand by the second respondent for payment
of the amount calculated on the kharab (a) portion of
land is illegal and without authority of law.
The counsel would raw the attention of the Court
to the Circular clarifying this position as understood
by the Government, as early as 8-12-1971, which is
at Annexure-"C" and which is extracted herein for
ready reference:--
"Pot Kharab lands defined under Rule 21(2)(a)
are those classified as unfit for agricultural at the
time of survey, including the Farm buildings or
threshing floors of the holder. As clarified by the
Law Department, all Pot Kharab lands which form
part of a holding and which have not been reserved
for Government or assigned for any public purpose
or for any other purposes mentioned in Rule
21(2)(b) of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules, belong
to the owner of the survey number and not
Government. The question of any further disposal
of such Pot Kharab lands does not therefore arise."
Further, the counsel would point out that in so far
as a later Circular dated 16-9-1994, which is at
Annexure -- "D" to the petition is concerned, the
tenor of the Circular has expressed an apprehension
that there has been loss to the Government Revenue
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
for not charging conversion fine in respect of Kharab
(a) portion of the land and based on such
apprehension, directions were issued to the Revenue
Officers to impose land value on the Kharab Portion
and also collect the conversion fine for the balance of
the land. The demand for payment of the market
value is traceable to this misinterpretation of the rule
and the law in making illegal demand of the market
value of the Pot Kharab portion of the land in the
petitioner's occupation.' It is in this background that
the present petition is sought to be filled.
The counsel would place reliance on the judments
of this Court P. Bhimachar v. State of Mysore and
Others [1966 (2) Mys. LJ 184] wherein a Division
Bench of this Court has held that Pot Kharab portion
of the land is included in the ownership of the
occupant. A similar view is taken in Saudagar Rasoor
Khan v. State of Mysore [AIR 1973 Karnataka 56]
wherein it is held that Kharab land is so called
because it is not cultivable and is a classification
made for the purposes of revenue exemption.
Rule 21(2)(a) is thus a provision relating to the
exemption from the payment of Land Revenue and
has no relevance for assuming that the Pot Kharab
portion is land not included in the occupancy, and
that it belongs to the Government. From this point of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
view also the demand made for the payment of the
market value on the Pot Kharab is unauthorised.
5. While the Government Pleader on the other hand,
would seek to justify the action of the State
Government on the basis of the Circulars namely
Circular No. RD 136 LGS 93, dated 16-9-1994 as well
as the Circular No. RD 137 LQW 2001, dated 17-6-
2003 whereunder an opinion of the Law Department
is expressed to the effect that kharab lands are
Government lands and therefore, the question of
acquiring those lands does not arise and hence, there
is no scope for making any payments to the landlords
in respect of Kharab land. Reliance is also placed on
a Circular dated 12-5-2004 wherein it is clarified that
if "A" Kharab land if granted by the competent
authority, it would only then become part and parcel
of Hiduvali land of the landlord. It is contended by
the Government pleader that the ownership of "A"
Kharab land always vests with the Government
unless it is granted to the landowner by the
competent authority. and therefore, would submit
that the demand made is in order.
6. It is not in dispute that in the present
circumstances, the demand made is in respect of Pot
Kharab (a) land. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
distinction made between an arable portion of land
and an unarable portion of land under Rule 107-for
purposes of levy of fine for conversion of land for
non-agricultural use. The reliance sought to be
placed by the state on the circulars which are mere
clarifications based on the opinions expressed by its
Law Department would not override the express
provisions of the law, which have been referred to
herein above. There is no indication that there is a
distinction between an arable portion of land and
unarable portion of land. The provisions of Section 95
relating to conversion of agricultural land for other
purposes does not also make any such distinction.
Hence, the State Government seeking to interpret
the provisions in order to obtain higher revenue
would not be tenable. It is only in respect of Pot
Kharab (b) lands, it could be said that the State
Government can claim the same as Government
lands. In so far as Pot Kharab (a) lands are
concerned, the Division Bench decisions referred to
above is categorical on this aspect and that has
attained finality. There is no other manner in which
the provisions could be interpreted."
8. It would also be useful to refer to the decision
of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS Vs. ISTAK AHMAD MOHAMMAD SAHEB AND
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
OTHERS referred supra, wherein it was held in paragraph
12 as under:
"12. As can be seen, when unarable land is
classified as 'Pot Kharab', meaning that it is not
brought under cultivation and that no land revenue
is paid in respect of such land any further
classification in sub-Clause (a) of sub-Rule (2) of
Rule 21 of the 1966 Rules, it is evident that if it is
unarable and unfit for agriculture and may include
farm buildings or threshing floors of the holder, it
would form part of larger extent of land, held by the
owner and would run with the land. No doubt, it
would be unarable land and no land revenue is paid
on the same, but ownership of the land would
continue with the land owner. If it is classified as
under sub-Clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 21 of
the 1966 Rules, it would be utilised for a public
purpose and no individual would have any claim
over the same and it would be used for purposes
such as for road or footpath or a tank or a stream or
burial ground or cremation ground or for village
potteries."
9. This Court, in the case of the STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT.G.ANURADHA
referred supra had also considered the circular dated
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
16.09.1994 of the State Government and granted the
relief to the petitioner.
10. The respondent admittedly sought for
conversion of 'A' kharab land to non-agricultural purposes
and paid the conversion fees. In view of the aforesaid
enunciation of the law laid down by this Court, the
demand for payment of market value by the appellant
No.2 is without any justification and also that it is based
on the circular which has been quashed by this Court. The
subsequent order is also based on the circular dated
16.09.1994. Hence, even under the said order, the
appellants cannot raise the demand for payment of market
value. It is noticed that the State Government has
brought an amendment to Rule 107-AA of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Rules, 1996. Admittedly the case on hand
is prior to the amendment. This Court in the aforesaid
decision has already taken a view that the phut 'A' kharab
land is an unarable land and the said classification is solely
for the revenue assessment of the said land. However,
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:53463-DB
HC-KAR
the ownership of such land would continue with the
landowner. Hence, the demand for market value of such
unarable land which is classified as a phut 'A' kharab land
which goes along the with arable land owned by the
respondent, is not justified. The learned Single Judge,
considering the aforesaid aspect has rightly allowed the
writ petition by directing the appellants to refund the
amount. The same does not call for any interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. The order of the
learned Single Judge shall be complied within six weeks
from today. Consequently, pending interlocutory
application, if any stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV/List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1
