- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2291-DB WA No. 200208 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 200208 OF 2022 (KLR-CON) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR – 585401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR – 585327. 4. THE TAHASILDAR TAHASIL OFFICE, HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR – 585330. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA) AND: DATTATRIYA S/O SANGAMNATH SUGANDHI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O ADARSH NAGAR COLONY, KALABURAGI 585105. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2291-DB WA No. 200208 of 2022 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.202042/2021 ON 05.01.2022 AND DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the State Government and other officials of the State Government challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 05.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.202042/2021 (KLR-CON), wherein the learned Single Judge considering the definition of agriculture under Section 2(1)(d) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, quashed the impugned action of the appellant. 2. Sri. Mallikarjun C.Basareddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the authorities taken action against the private - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2291-DB WA No. 200208 of 2022 respondent as he was carrying out the non-agricultural activities in the agricultural land which has been found fault with by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted that pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the Deputy Commissioner Bidar, passed an order dated 15.11.2023, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has restored the name of the respondent in the revenue records subject to the rider that if the respondent in contravention of the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, make use of the agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose, he would take action in accordance with law. It is submitted that in view of the specific order of the Deputy Commissioner, this writ appeal may be disposed of with a liberty to the State to take action if the respondent make use of the agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose without the permission of authority. 3. Per contra, Sri. Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above writ appeal would not survive for consideration in view of the subsequent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2291-DB WA No. 200208 of 2022 order dated 15.11.2023 and it is further submitted that the respondent would not carry out any other activity other than the poultry farm in the said land. His submission is place on record. 4. We have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 15.11.2023, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has complied the directions of the learned Single Judge by restoring the name of the respondent in the revenue records. The order dated 15.11.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, indicates that a specific observation is made by the Deputy Commissioner in his order that, if the respondent carries out any activities in contravention of the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, he would resume the land for the State Government. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2291-DB WA No. 200208 of 2022 6. We are of the considered view that the present appeal would not survive for consideration to be adjudicated on merits in view of the subsequent order dated 15.11.2023. 7. It is always open for the Deputy Commissioner or any other revenue officers to take action against the respondent, if the respondent carries out the non- agricultural activity in agricultural land without the proper permission from the authority other than the poultry farm. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (K NATARAJAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE MSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT: PS