- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8565 WP No. 61 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 61 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MAHESH S/O NAGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT HAKKIMANCHANAHALLI, SELENERE HOBLI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA - 571 434. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, K.R. PET, K.R. PET TALUK, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8565 WP No. 61 of 2025 MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426. 5. AKRAMA SAKRAMA SAMITHI (DHARKASTU SAMITHI), K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISRICT - 571 475, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIONS EFFECTIVELY, MADE ON 22.11.2024 FOR NOT TO ALLOT OR GRANT GOVERNMENT GOMALA LAND TO ANY PERSON, SITUATED IN SURVEY NO. 28 BALANCE LAND MEASURING 26 ACRES 18 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HAKKIMANCHANAHALLI VILLAGE, SELEMERE HIBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT PRODUCED AS ANNX-A, B AND C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions against Respondents No.2 to 4 to ensure that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.11.2024 is duly considered. The primary grievance - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8565 WP No. 61 of 2025 of the petitioner is to prevent the grant or allotment of any further gomala lands to private individuals in Survey No.28. Additionally, the petitioner prays for a direction to the concerned authorities to retain 26 acres and 18 guntas of land in the said survey number as designated gomala land, preserving it for its intended use. 2. The matter was heard with due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents. 3. The petitioner, a resident of Hakkimanchanalli village, Selemere Hobli, K.R. Pete Taluk, Mandya District, has approached this Court with concerns regarding the preservation of gomala land. It is the petitioner's contention that while he does not challenge the grants that have already been made in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8565 WP No. 61 of 2025 favor of certain individuals, he apprehends that further allotments of such lands may take place, which, in his view, would be detrimental to the larger interests of the farming community. The petitioner emphasizes the importance of retaining gomala land for the benefit of local farmers, who rely on these lands for grazing and other communal purposes. 4. However, this Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the diversion of gomala lands. The Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as '1966 Rules') contain explicit provisions concerning the management and administration of gomala lands. In particular, Rule 97 of the 1966 Rules places a mandate upon the Deputy Commissioner, who serves as the custodian of gomala lands, to strictly adhere to the statutory framework before diverting such lands for any purpose other than their - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8565 WP No. 61 of 2025 designated use. The said rule explicitly requires the Deputy Commissioner to assign valid and justifiable reasons before effecting any diversion of gomala land. 5. In the present case, the petitioner's concerns are based purely on an apprehension that there is a possibility of future diversions of gomala land. However, judicial intervention cannot be sought merely on the basis of apprehensions or speculative concerns. Unless there is a specific instance of violation of the prescribed legal procedures under the 1966 Rules, this Court cannot issue prohibitory orders in anticipation of such an eventuality. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to emphasize that the Deputy Commissioner, being the appropriate authority and custodian of gomala lands, is legally obligated to deal with these lands in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. It is expected that any action concerning gomala lands will be undertaken strictly - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8565 WP No. 61 of 2025 within the bounds of the law and in adherence to the procedural safeguards set forth under Rule 97 of the 1966 Rules. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in the absence of any specific legal infringement at present, no specific directions can be issued by this Court. However, the authorities concerned are reminded of their statutory responsibilities while dealing with gomala lands. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: BHK