- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 38695 OF 2014 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ASIAMMA W/O ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BATTAIPADE HOUSE NERIYA VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK DK-574257. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. N.T.THOMAS S/O THOMAS PARAPPU HOUSE NERIYA VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K-574 257. 2. THE THAHSILDAR BELTHANGADY TALUK BELTHANGADY, D.K-574 257. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE, D.K-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIDANANDA .K, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2001 PASSED BY THE THAHSILDAR/R-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE ORDERS DTD 15.3.2004 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/R-3 IN THE PROCEEDINGS NO. CDS.RAP.209/2002-03 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner in the captioned petition is assailing the impugned order dated 20.11.2001 passed by respondent No.2/Tahsildar vide Annexure-B and the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Tahsildar vide Annexure-A. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner asserts that he has acquired title in respect of Sy.No.31-1B along with Kumki land by virtue of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 registered partition deed dated 25.1.2025. Petitioner sold the property in favour of respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 23.7.1990. Petitioner further argued that she re-purchased the land from respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 27.5.1991. 3. Pursuant to repurchase, respondent No.1 started asserting possessory rights over the kumki land attached to the warga land. This compelled petitioner to file the suit in O.S.No.179/1992 seeking possession of kumki land from respondent No.1. This said suit was decreed by judgment dated 29.2.2000. 4. Respondent No.1 preferred regular first appeal in RFA.No.24/2000. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 5. Respondent No.1, after suffering two decrees from the competent civil court, applied for grant of land before the Akrama-Sakrama Committee, where respondent No.2/Tahsildar serves as the Secretary. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 Invoking Section 94(B) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "KLR Act, 1964"), respondent No.2 issued an order on 20.11.2001 granting kumki land to respondent No.1. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, citing the petitioner's failure to contest or file objections before the Akrama-Sakrama Committee. This petition has therefore been filed. 6. The Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), and the counsel representing respondents No.2 and 3. 7. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1, either today or on the previous hearing. The matter was adjourned to the present day as a final opportunity to enable respondent No.1 to present his arguments. However, even today, there is no - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 representation. Given that this case dates back to 2004, the Court proceeds to decide the matter on its merits. 8. Before this Court adverts to the validity of the order under challenge, this Court deems fit to take cognizance of the law relating to kumkidar's privileges. In the case of Lawrence Mendonsa vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura, Dakshina Kannada, and others1, the Co-ordinate Bench ruled that kumki privileges associated with kumki land are inherently linked to warg land and cannot be exercised independently. These privileges must be utilized in conjunction with warg land. Referring to the Land Grant Rules and the Standing Orders of the Madras Board, the Bench further emphasized that kumki privileges in kumki land are inseparable from warg land. 9. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petition land is the kumki land. Now, whether the authority invoking Section 94(B) of the KLR Act, 1964 1 2000(4) Kar.L.J.292 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 could have granted this land to respondent No.1. It would be useful for this Court examine the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in the case of K. Sham Bhat and another .vs. State of Karnataka and others2. The Full Bench of this Court while examining the relevant Section 79(2) of the KLR Act, 1964 held that kumki rights cannot be curtailed, abridged or taken away by an executive order. Even if at all the revenue authorities intend to divert kumki privileges, the same has to be done in the manner known to law. Unless there is divesting of kumki land, there cannot be a grant by a sub- ordinate officer namely, Tahsildar. 10. In the instant case, the judgment rendered in O.S.No.179/1992 clinches the rights that can be traced by respondent No.1 in the petition land. Records clearly reveal that petitioner acquired warga land along with adjacent kumki land which is the subject matter of the petition. Though petitioner sold warga land along with 2 2004(1) Kar.L.J. 490(FB) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 kumki privileges, the fact that petitioner has re-purchased warga land from respondent No.1 under registered sale deed dated 27.5.1991 is not in serious dispute. Once there is re-purchase by the petitioner under registered sale deed in respect of warga land, kumki privileges would automatically reflow along with conveyance effected by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner. 11. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 appears to have originated from a decree for possession rendered against respondent No.1 in O.S.No.179/1992 by a competent civil court. In an apparent attempt to circumvent the decree, respondent No.1 approached the revenue authorities, seeking the grant of the kumki land in question. However, it is undisputed that this kumki land is intrinsically attached to the warga land owned by the petitioner. Despite this critical fact, the Tahsildar, acting in complete disregard of the legal principles governing the issue, proceeded to pass the impugned order granting the kumki land to respondent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 No.1. There is no evidence to suggest that the Tahsildar conducted any meaningful inquiry into the nature of the land or the prevailing legal framework before issuing the grant. It is well-settled that kumki privileges are ancillary to and inseparable from the ownership of warga land. Respondent No.1, having no independent rights over the kumki land, could not have been lawfully granted these privileges. The impugned order, therefore, reflects a gross misapplication of the law and merits outright invalidation. 12. Even if respondent No.1 had sought a grant of the kumki land under Rule 108(F) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "KLR Rules, 1966"), he would have been required to substantiate possession of the land for at least three years prior to the cut-off date of January 14, 1990, as stipulated in the said rule. Rule 108(F) of the KLR Rules, 1966 explicitly lays down the eligibility criteria for the regularization of unauthorized occupation. In this context, respondent No.1’s claim is untenable for multiple reasons. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 Firstly, respondent No.1, having purchased the warga land along with its attached kumki privileges, cannot assert unauthorized possession of the kumki land, as his claim is derivative and conditional upon the ownership of the warga land. Secondly, the petitioner re-purchased the warga land through a registered sale deed dated May 27, 1991. Consequently, the kumki privileges, which are inseparable from the warga land, automatically reverted to the petitioner. Thirdly, the petitioner’s initial sale of the warga land to respondent No.1 on July 23, 1990, occurred after the cut-off date specified under Rule 108(F), thereby disqualifying respondent No.1 from asserting eligibility under the rule. The revenue authority also failed to evaluate these critical aspects of eligibility and the relevant legal provisions before granting the kumki privileges to respondent No.1. Thus, the impugned order granting the kumki land to respondent No.1 is legally unsustainable and deserves to be quashed in its entirety. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:795 WP No. 38695 of 2014 13. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.11.2001 passed by respondent No.2/Tahsildar vide Annexure-B and the order dated 15.3.2004 passed by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner confirming the order of the Tahsildar vide Annexure-A are hereby set aside. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43