Karnataka High Court
Smt Arti Kishore vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
WP No. 50871 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 50871 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT ARTI KISHORE
W/O KISHORE KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. SMT R RATHI DEVI
W/O LATE LAXMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT 'PANCHAJANAYA'
KADRI TEMPLE ROAD, MANGALORE-3
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT-575 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT-575 001
3. THE TAHASILDAR
MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
WP No. 50871 of 2019
HC-KAR
4. DISTRICT MINORITIES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT MINORITIES
WELFATER OFFICER,
MOULANA AZAD BHAVAN,
OLD KENT ROAD, PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU,D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. PRASANNA V.R, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. SIDDAPPA N.C, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 20.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNX-A AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners in this writ petition is seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash the order dated 20.08.2019 passed in
REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19 by the respondent No.1 -
Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, whereby respondent
No.1 exercising powers under Section 79(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for brevity, "the KLR Act") removed
the Kumki privilege of the property bearing Sy.No.8/45 of
Malavooru village held by the respective holders including the
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
HC-KAR
petitioners, who were in possession of the same, by reserving
2.16 acres out of said survey number for public purpose i.e., to
the Minority Department for construction of Haj Bhavan
building.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the
owners in possession of land bearing Sy.Nos.8/53, 8/52, 8/45
and 8/50 of Malavooru village. Out of these lands, land bearing
Sy.No.8/45 accede to the Kumki privilege for the use of varga
holders of the said area for better enjoyment and cultivation in
their respective lands, including for securing green manure and
also for grazing cattle.
3. Things stood thus, respondent No.3 forwarded a proposal
to respondent No.2 to reserve 2.16 Acres of land in Sy No.8/45
for the purpose of construction of Haj Bhavan vide letter
22.10.2018. Respondent No.2, in turn, forwarded the same to
respondent No.1 on 27.11.2018 for withdrawal of kumki
privilege of petitioners and others in respect of 2.16 Acres in Sy
No.8/45.
4. Based on the proposal of respondent No.2, respondent
No.1 issued notice to the petitioners on 28.12.2018 and to
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
HC-KAR
other persons who were holding kumki privilege over the
subject land. The petitioners filed a detailed objection before
respondent No.1 about their right, possession and the
consequence of withdrawal of their kumki privilege and
explained about the non-feasibility of the subject land for
construction of Haj Bhavan as the said land was situated within
the bank of Palguni river. Despite respondent No.1, without
considering the objections of the petitioners and without duly
serving notice to others, hastily passed the impugned order by
withdrawing the kumki privilege of the petitioners and others
over subject land vide Annexure-A.
5. Heard Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for
respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Prasanna V.R., learned counsel for
respondent No.4.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that, respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner,
without considering the objections filed by the petitioners and
without considering the vast improvement made by the
petitioners in the subject land being the kumki land of their
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
HC-KAR
varga, has passed the impugned order. He further contended
that, the kumki privilege is protected under Section 79(2) of
the KLR Act and without proper enquiry, respondent No.1 ought
not have withdrawn the said privilege, despite the report of the
Village accountant regarding possession and enjoyment of the
portion of the subject land by the petitioners.
7. He also contended that, the privilege of kumki lands of
other 15 persons was also withdrawn without serving proper
notice to them. Additionally, he contended that respondent
No.1 has passed a cryptic order without assigning proper
reasons to withdraw the kumki privilege. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent
contended that respondent No.1, after issuing notice to all the
16 persons including these petitioners, who were in possession
of kumki land in the total extent of 2 acres 16 guntas, passed
the impugned order. According to him, the other 15 persons
were not appeared before respondent No.1. Further, the
petitioners cannot claim a kumki privilege as a matter of right
in view of the settled position of law by this court in K. SHAM
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
HC-KAR
BHAT AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF KARANTAKA - ILR 2003 KAR
3026. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Learned HCGP supported the impugned order and prays
to dismiss the writ petition.
10. As could be gathered from records, it is undisputed that
the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of kumki
privilege in Sy.No.8/45 which is attached to their varga land
and also the other 15 land owners were in possession and
enjoyment of kumki privilege land. No doubt, this Court and the
Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that the power to
extinguish Kumki privilege can be exercised by the Deputy
Commissioner selectively depending upon the predominant
public interest sought to be achieved. However, in the instant
case, respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner has withdrawn
the privilege of kumki to an extent of 2.16 acres in Sy.No.8/45
and ordered to hand over the land to the Minority Department
for construction of Haj Bhavan building.
11. On careful perusal of the impugned proceedings before
the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1, it is noticed that
though the Deputy Commissioner has received the statement of
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
HC-KAR
objections filed by the petitioners, had not provided sufficient
opportunity to them to put forth their case in detail. Further, it
could be seen from the proceedings that the other 15 persons
were not appeared before the Deputy Commissioner. Further,
respondent No.3 -Tahsildar and respondent No.2 - Assistant
Commissioner categorically stated in their report that the
subject land is a kumki land attached to the varga land of the
petitioners and others. The checklist provided by the Village
Accountant of Malavooru village at Annexure-F and G also
depicts that there are agricultural activities being carried in the
subject land. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner
ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners
to contest their claim over the subject land. Nevertheless, the
acquisition of subject land is not with regard to the public
interest at large. In such circumstance, the kumki privilege can
be curtailed, abridged or taken away only in accordance with
the law in view of provisions as contemplated in Section 79(2)
of the KLR Act.
12. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner has passed a cryptic
order hurriedly without providing sufficient opportunity to the
NC: 2025:KHC:44811
HC-KAR
petitioners to contest their claim over the subject land. Hence,
in my considered view, the matter requires reconsideration at
the hands of respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. In view of
the same, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order passed by respondent
No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is set aside.
3. The matter is remitted back to respondent
No.1 - Deputy Commissioner for fresh
consideration of reference in
REF:CDIS:LND(3B):50/2018-19, by extending
opportunity to the petitioners to defend their
case by producing relevant documents/records
within an outer limit of six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
