appeared in person. Smt. Rupa Devaraju., counsel on behalf of
2. The Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
1. A writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the
impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the
respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K-3 bearing No.L.G.L.
VIVA:201:2023-24 whereby proposing the subject land
for grant in favour of the 6th respondent for the housing
project for the labours.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
2. A writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order
dated 22.01.2024 bearing No.RD 008 LGD 2024 passed
by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-L.
3. Grant any other relief/s deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Mala B. Bhute, AGA for respondents 1 to 5, State, appeared
in person.
2. The Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
A) Issue an order in the nature of writ of certiorari or quash the
impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner Dharwad,
in LND/LGL/CR/507/2022-23, undated, vide Anneuxre-G,
confirming the order of Assistant commissioner Dharwad, in
LND/CR/170/2022-23 nill-10-2022 vide Annexure-F, to meet
the ends of justice, and direction be issued to consider
Annexure-C dated 05.02.2022 as per law.
B) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case, including costs, in the
interest of justice and equity.
3. Brief Facts of the Case.
The Petitioners are the absolute owners and are in actual
cultivation of agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 77, totally
measuring 17 acres 20 guntas, including 7 acres 12 guntas
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
classified as 'B Potkharab' land, situated at Satthuru, Dharwad. It
is further submitted that an extent of 36 guntas out of the said
land has been acquired by the Hubli-Dharwad Urban
Development Authority.
In 2022, the Petitioners approached the revenue
authorities seeking rectification of the revenue entries insofar as
07 Acres 12 Guntas of area out of the entire extent of the land.
Pursuant thereto, proceedings were initiated, and a joint
inspection was conducted with the assistance of the Survey
Department and other concerned authorities. After local
inspection of the land, a report was submitted stating that the
Petitioners are cultivating the entire land, including the 'B
Potkharab' portion, and recommending that an extent of 7 acres
12 guntas be treated as cultivable land.
However, the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad, issued an
endorsement stating that 'B Potkharab' land cannot be converted
for cultivation. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the
Petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Deputy
Commissioner, Dharwad.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
The Deputy Commissioner, upon consideration, dismissed
the said revision petition, thereby affirming the endorsement
issued by the Assistant Commissioner without properly
appreciating the inspection report and the factual position on the
ground.
Being aggrieved by the impugned endorsement and the
order passed in revision, and the recommendation to allot 7
Acres 12 Guntas in favour of Labour Welfare Board having no
other efficacious alternative remedy, the Petitioners have filed
the present Writ Petitions on various grounds as set out in the
accompanying memorandum of writ petitions.
4. Counsel for the respective parties presented several
contentions.
Counsel for the petitioners, in presenting his arguments,
strongly pointed out that the revenue authorities failed to
consider that the provisions of Rules 21 (1) and (2) do not apply
to this case, as the entire land is being cultivated by the
petitioners. He argued that the records also show that the
disputed land is being used as a mango garden. Despite the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
report indicating that the land is used for agricultural purposes,
the recommendation to transfer the land to the Labour Welfare
Board cannot be sustained. Counsel, hence, submits that the
reasons assigned in the impugned endorsement, the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the consequential
recommendation are unsustainable in law.
By way of reply to the said contention, the AGA justified
the action of the revenue authorities. It was contended on behalf
of the Government that both A-Kharab and B-Kharab lands are
Government lands. While A-Kharab land is attached to cultivable
land, the ownership thereof remains vested with the
Government; B-Kharab land, on the other hand, is reserved for
public purposes. It was further argued that the disputed land,
being classified as B Potkharab land, is not capable of conversion
for cultivation. On these and other grounds, the AGA submitted
that the writ petitions are devoid of merit and sought their
dismissal.
5. Heard the arguments advanced by the counsel on
both sides and perused the writ papers with due care.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
6. In the backdrop of these rival contentions, the short
question that arises for consideration is whether the opinion of
the Tahasildar has been examined from the proper perspective
by the Assistant Commissioner, and whether the consequential
recommendation to transfer the land to the Labor Welfare Board
is just and proper.
A perusal of the report of the Tahasildar makes it evident
that the Tahasildar has, in extenso, referred to the material on
record and concluded that the disputed land does not fall within
the ambit of Rule 21(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,
and therefore cannot be reserved for public purposes as B-
Kharab land. However, the Assistant Commissioner has taken a
contrary view, holding that the disputed land falls within the
purview of Rule 21(2), placing reliance solely on Government
Letter No. DPAL 69 SHASHANA 2020, dated 19.10.2020.
7. In my considered opinion, the report and findings of
the Tahasildar have not been appreciated from the proper
perspective. The reason is not far to seek. Pursuant to the
request made by the petitioners, a joint inspection was
conducted with the assistance of the Survey Department and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
other concerned authorities. Upon local inspection, it was
reported that the petitioners are in cultivation of the entire
extent of the land and that the disputed portion does not fall
within Rule 21(2)(b), and hence cannot be treated as B-Kharab
land reserved for public purposes.
8. In such circumstances, what was required of the
Assistant Commissioner was to independently examine whether
the disputed land falls within the scope of Rule 21(2)(b).
However, except for placing reliance on the aforesaid
Government letter, there is no meaningful consideration of the
Tahsildar's report or the material gathered during the joint
inspection.
9. Accordingly, the matter warrants remand. The
Assistant Commissioner is directed to reconsider the issue
afresh, taking into account the report and opinion of the
Tahasildar, and to pass orders in accordance with law.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned
endorsement vide Annexure-F; the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexure-G; the impugned recommendation
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4454
HC-KAR
vide Annexure-K3 and the order dated:22.01.2024 vide
Annexure-L are hereby quashed.
11. Resultantly, the writ petitions stand allowed. The
matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh
consideration in accordance with the law, in the light of the
observations made hereinabove.
12. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
