Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106286 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN:
1. DEVAPPA NADUVINAMANI S/O. HANAMAPPA FAKIRAWWA NADUVINAMANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ADD: R/O. TONDIHAL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. SHIVAWWA KADEMANI W/O. HANAMAPPA YAMANAWWA KADEMANI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, ADD: R/O. TONDIHAL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
3. NAGAWWA HAADIMANI
W/O. ERAPPA BALAWWA HAADIMANI, Digitally signed by AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH ADD: R/O. TONDIHAL, TQ: YELBURGA, COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DIST: KOPPAL. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU, BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND REFORMS, YALBURGA. -2-
3. THE TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, YELBURGA, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, YALBURGA, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL, BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
5. MALLIKARJUNA GOUDA S/O. NINGANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ADD: TONDIHAL, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; AS PER V/O/DATED 27/11/2017 R5 IS ABATED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2011 BEARING NO./KANDAYA/LRM/192 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2013 BEARING NO./KANDAYA/LRM/DCL/192/2004-05 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE
RESPONDENTS NO.1-3 IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO GRANT SOME OTHER SUITABLE LAND IN THE SAME VILLAGE TO THE PETITIONERS IMMEDIATELY FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -3-
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent/State. Petition against respondent no. 5 is dismissed as abated.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit. petitioner no.1 is no more and legal representatives are not brought on record.
3. Petition filed by petitioner no.1 is technically dismissed as abated.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners no. 2 and 3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners no. 2 and 3 would submit that the land in question was originally granted to the petitioners under Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
1961. It is his submission that the earlier landlord had filed a
declaration stating that the land held by the fifth respondent - landlord was surplus and thereafter, the lands were granted to the petitioners. It is his further submission that later, respondent no. 5 filed a Writ Petition challenging the order declaring the land -4- as surplus on the premise that holding permissible for one of the sons of respondent no. 5 was not taken into account, as such, the order treating the land as surplus was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal.
6. Thereafter, the Tribunal has held that the land is not surplus in the hands of respondent no.5. As such the grant made in favour of petitioners is cancelled.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the changed circumstances, the petitioners would restrict their claim only to the alternative prayer for grant of land elsewhere in the same Taluk.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit
that since the petitioners were granted land earlier under Section 77 of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, it is to be presumed that they were eligible for grant of surplus land. Thus, it is his contention that in case the petition schedule lands were not available for grant in favour of the petitioners, the authorities are under an obligation to consider whether any surplus land is available in the same Taluk and if so, they are under obligation to grant the same in favour of the petitioners.
-5-
9. Learned Government Advocate would oppose the
petition on the premise that the petitioners are not eligible for the alternative relief. The land was granted to the petitioners earlier on the earlier finding recorded which held that the land in the hands of respondent no. 5 was surplus and as such, it was granted to the petitioners. Now, it is found that the land is not surplus, as such, the petitioners are not eligible for any grant.
10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
11. There is no dispute that earlier the land was granted
to the petitioners, and prior to the grant, the land was declared as surplus in the hands of respondent no. 5. It would indicate that the petitioners were eligible for grant. Later, the land in the hands of respondent no.5 are not found to be surplus as such, the grant is cancelled.
12. Section 77 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
provides for grant of surplus land to the eligible persons. If it is found that the surplus land is available in the same Taluk and if it is found that the petitioners are even now eligible for grant in the Taluk and if it is found that the petitioners are not otherwise -6- ineligible to claim grant, then the respondent/authorities shall consider, whether any such land which is a surplus land within the meaning of Section 77 of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 that can be granted to the petitioners in the same Taluk where it is granted earlier.
13. It is also noticed that petitioner no.1 is no more. However, petitioners are not questioning the order passed by the Land Tribunal. The prayer is to grant the surplus land if it is available in the same Taluk.
14. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is disposed.
(ii) The legal representatives of petitioner no.1 are
permitted to file an application before the competent authority under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for grant of land if it is available for grant, and if legal representatives are eligible for grant.
(iii) So also petitioners No.2 and 3 shall file a separate application. -7-
(iv) The applications shall be considered in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above.
(v) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the claim of the petitioners.
(vi) All contentions kept open.
(vii) The exercise shall be completed within 4 months from the date of receipt of the application. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 3