High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition Challenging Classification of Land as 'B' Kharab Reserved for Public Purpose Under Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Land classified as 'B' kharab land cannot be regularized for unauthorized cultivation as per Rule 21(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 22
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri T. Nagappa, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division (fourth respondent) in proceedings No. ULND/CR/135/2003-04. The impugned order was passed after an enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent pursuant to a direction issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13549 of 2005 (KLR-RES) dated 13.03.2007. The Deputy Commissioner held that the land bearing Sy.No.123/3 is 'B' kharab land as reflected in Akarbandh, and therefore, it is reserved for public purpose under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Consequently, the land cannot be considered for regularization of unauthorized cultivation by any person. The petitioner sought to quash this order. The court, after considering the matter, dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The court found no merit in the petition and affirmed that the land is 'B' kharab land reserved for public purpose, and thus cannot be regularized for unauthorized cultivation.

Headnote

A) Land Revenue - Classification of Land - 'B' Kharab Land - Rule 21(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - The petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner classifying the land as 'B' kharab land reserved for public purpose. The court held that the land is 'B' kharab land as per Akarbandh and cannot be regularized for unauthorized cultivation. (Paras 2-3)

B) Land Revenue - Regularization of Unauthorized Cultivation - 'B' Kharab Land - Rule 21(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 - The court held that 'B' kharab land is reserved for public purpose and cannot be considered for regularization of unauthorized cultivation by any person. (Para 2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the land bearing Sy.No.123/3 is 'B' kharab land reserved for public purpose and whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner classifying it as such is valid

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11.06.2012 is upheld.

Law Points

  • Land classification as 'B' kharab land is reserved for public purpose under Rule 21(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules
  • 1966
  • cannot be regularized for unauthorized cultivation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (KAR) (11) 15

Writ Petition No.29973 of 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)

2019-11-04

S.N. Satyanarayana

R.A. Devanand (for petitioner), T.S. Mahantesh (AGA for R3 & R4)

Sri T. Nagappa

Sri Abdul Gafoor Sab, Sri H.M. Maralu Siddappa, The Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division, The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere Sub-Division

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner classifying land as 'B' kharab land reserved for public purpose

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the fourth respondent (Deputy Commissioner)

Filing Reason

The petitioner was aggrieved by the order classifying the land as 'B' kharab land and reserving it for public purpose, thereby preventing regularization of unauthorized cultivation

Previous Decisions

The impugned order was passed after an enquiry pursuant to a direction in W.P.No.13549 of 2005 (KLR-RES) dated 13.03.2007

Issues

Whether the land bearing Sy.No.123/3 is 'B' kharab land reserved for public purpose under Rule 21(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner classifying the land as 'B' kharab land is valid and sustainable

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the order classifying the land as 'B' kharab land is erroneous and should be quashed Respondents (State) supported the order, contending that the land is 'B' kharab land as per Akarbandh and reserved for public purpose

Ratio Decidendi

Land classified as 'B' kharab land in Akarbandh is reserved for public purpose under Rule 21(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, and cannot be regularized for unauthorized cultivation by any person.

Judgment Excerpts

The order impugned is passed after an enquiry being conducted by the fourth respondent pursuant to a direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13549 of 2005 (KLR-RES) dated 13th March, 2007. The order impugned is passed in holding that the land bearing Sy.No.123/3 is ‘B’ kharab land as reflected in Akarbandh. Hence, the same is reserved for public purpose under Rule 21(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. As such, the same cannot be considered for regularization of unauthorized cultivation by any person and any person.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed W.P.No.29973 of 2012 challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11.06.2012. The impugned order was passed after an enquiry directed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.13549 of 2005 dated 13.03.2007. The writ petition came up for preliminary hearing in 'B' group and was dismissed on 04.11.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966: Rule 21(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition Challenging Classification of Land as 'B' Kharab Reserved for Public Purpose Under Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Land classified as 'B' kharab land cannot be regularized for unauthorized cultivation as...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Summoning of Appellants Under Section 319 CrPC in Dowry Death Case — Dying Declaration Only Named One Accused, General Allegations Insufficient. No Prima Facie Case for Section 302 IPC or Dowry Offences Against Appellants.