[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Mahaveer S/O Annappa Gundappanavar on 22 January, 2026

                                                     -1-
                                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB
                                                              WA No. 100487 of 2024


                       HC-KAR


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                                DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                                  PRESENT

                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

                                                     AND

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

                                 WRIT APPEAL NO. 100487 OF 2024 (ULC)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                           BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT
                           OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M. S. BUILDING,
                           BANGALORE - 560 001.

                      2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
                           TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.

                      3.   THE THASILDAR, BELAGAVI,
                           TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI - 590 001.
                                                                         ... APPELLANTS
                      (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

Digitally signed by   AND:
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,        MAHAVEER S/O. ANNAPPA GUNDAPPANAVAR,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
                           SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.

                      1.   SUSHILA MAHAVEER GUNDAPPANAVAR,
                           AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
                           R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
                           ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

                      2.   JYOTI RAVINDRA GUNDAPPANVAR,
                           AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
                           R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
                           ANGOL, BELGAVI - 590 006.

                      3.   NEERAJ RAVINDRA GUNADAPPANVAR,
                           AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB
                                        WA No. 100487 of 2024


 HC-KAR


     R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
     ANHOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

4.   NEHA OMKAR BONGALE,
     AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: EAKDANT APARTMENT,
     RAGHUNATH PETH, ANGOL,
     BELAGAVI - 590 006.

5.   ROHINI VINOD GUNDAPPANAVAR,
     AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
     R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
     ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

6.   RISHA VINOD GUNDAPPANAVAR,
     AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
     ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

7.   RUTVI VINOD GUNDAPPANVAR,
     AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
     R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
     ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.
     (SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     MINOR GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1E)

8.   RAJASHREE PARIS YEBRER,
     AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
     R/O: CCB 44, HANAMANNAVAR GALLI,
     ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.
                                                  ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASADKUMAR GUNAKI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R8)


      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 109619
OF 2015 (ULC) DATED 15-02-2024 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC.,


      THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
          AND
          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
                                     -3-
                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB
                                              WA No. 100487 of 2024


HC-KAR


                          ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)

1. Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition

No.109619 of 2015, the respondents' - State has preferred this

writ appeal.

2. The issue pertains to the acquisition of the property

belonging to the respondents under the provisions of the Urban

Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short "the Act,

1976").

3. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.109619

of 2015 has passed the following order:

      "i)    The writ petition is allowed.

      ii)      The endorsement dated 07.04/05.2015 issued by

respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

iii) It is declared that the petitioner is the owner of the subject lands and respondent No3 is directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the record of rights in respect of the subject lands within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

iv) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration."

4. The case of the State is that the respondents held

vacant lands in an urban area in excess of the permissible limits

NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB

HC-KAR

and hence, after issuance of notice, they themselves have

surrendered the said land in favour of the State and the

respondents have belatedly challenged the said surrender and,

on erroneous grounds, the learned Single Judge has allowed

their writ petition and passed the impugned order.

5. Per contra, the respondents submit that they did not

surrender the land voluntarily and that the same was taken away

from their possession forcibly and they were dispossessed by an

officer who was not competent to do so under the provisions of

the Act, 1976. It is further contented that the lands concerned

are agricultural in nature and are not part of the urban

agglomeration or urban land or vacant land as defined under the

Act, 1976 and hence, the same could not have been acquired

under the provisions of the Act, 1976.

6. The records reveal that the lands concerned are

agricultural lands, which is not disputed by the learned AGA. The

records also reveal that the lands were owned by the

respondents earlier and that presently the revenue records stand

in the name of the State. No third-party rights have been

created and presently an order is passed reserving the lands as a

NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB

HC-KAR

burial ground for the benefit of the residents of Peeranawadi

Village of Belagavi Taluka.

7. Section 3 of the Act, 1976 reads as under and

Section 4 of the Act, 1976 defines what is ceiling limit.

"3. Persons not entitled to hold vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit.- Except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-section (2) of section 1."

8. Thus, the Act prohibits a person holding vacant land,

as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1976, beyond a

ceiling limit specified therein.

9. Section 2(q) defines "vacant land" as follows:

"(q) "vacant land" means land, not being land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture, in an urban agglomeration, but does not include-

(i) land on which construction of a building is not permissible under the building regulations in force in the area in which such land is situated;

(ii) in an area where there are building regulations, the land occupied by any building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on, the appointed day with the approval of the appropriate authority and the land appurtenant to such building; and

(iii) in an area where there are no building regulations, the land occupied by any

NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB

HC-KAR

building which has been constructed before, or is being constructed on, the appointed day and the land appurtenant to such building:

Provided that where any person ordinarily keeps his cattle, other than for the purpose of dairy farming or for the purpose of breeding of live-stock, on any land situated in a village within an urban agglomeration (described as a village in the revenue records), then, so much extent of the land as has been ordinarily used for the keeping of such cattle immediately before the appointed day shall not be deemed to be vacant land for the purposes of this clause."

10. Section 2(o) defines "urban land" as follows:

     (o)     "urban land" means,-

              (i)    any land situated within the limits of an

urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan; or

(ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the local limits of a municipality (by whatever name called), a notified area committee, a town area committee, a city and town committee, a small town committee, a cantonment board or a panchayat,

but does not include any such land which is mainly used for the purpose of agriculture.

Explanation. For the purpose of this clause and clause (q),-

(A) "agriculture" includes horticulture, but does not include-

              (i)    raising of grass,

              (ii)   dairy farming,

                                            NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB



HC-KAR


           (iii)   poultry farming,

           (iv)    breeding of live-stock, and

           (v)     such cultivation, or the growing of such
                   plant, as may be prescribed;

(B) land shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture, if such land is not entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture:

Provided that where on any land which is entered in the revenue or land records before the appointed day as for the purpose of agriculture, there is a building which is not in the nature of a farmhouse, then, so much of the extent of such land as is occupied by the building shall not be deemed to be used mainly for the purpose of agriculture:

Provided further that if any question arises whether any building is in the nature of a farm-house, such question shall be referred to the State Government and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final;

C) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (B) of this Explanation, land shall not be deemed to be mainly used for the purpose of agriculture if the land has been specified in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture;"

11. Admittedly, the lands were agriculture in nature as

on the date on which the State claims to have taken possession

by virtue of respondents voluntarily surrendering the same in

favour of the State. The same could not have been done, as the

lands could not have been taken possession of by the State

under the Provisions of the Act, 1976, since the lands could not

NC: 2026:KHC-D:783-DB

HC-KAR

have been considered vacant land under the Act, 1976. Under

these circumstances, it is not required to consider whether the

respondents voluntarily surrendered the land or the State took

possession of the land through an Officer as required.