- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16252 WP No. 64610 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 64610 OF 2012 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN: 1. BALARAM S/O. KANDASWAMY NAIKAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., KASHIMBI W/O. ALLASAB DASTIKOPP, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. JANNATBI W/O. MEHABOOB SAB PENDARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 3. RAJBI W/O. MEHABOOBSAB TORGAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. FAKRUSAB S/O. BALARAM NAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. SRI. BABU S/O. FAKRUSAB MULLANAVAR, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR’S., IMAMBI W/O BABU MULLANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 6. FATHIMA W/O FAKRUSAB DIVANKHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 7. KASHIMBI W/O KARIMSAB BURANUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 8. SRI. FAKRUSAB S/O BABU MULLANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.27 12:54:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16252 WP No. 64610 of 2012 9. SRI. SYEDA W/O HUSSAINSAB MYAKALMARDI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, 10. SMT. BASHEERA W/O SHAFIQ AHMED MULLA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL R/O. GOUTANA AGRICULTURAL LAND OF KANAVI HOOLIKATTI-LINGANAKOPP, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE AUTHORITY FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED LAND, KALAGHATAGI TALUKA, DHARWAD. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, KALAGHATAGI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NIL-10-2000 BEARING NO.A.Sa.Ka.Vahi.426.99-2000 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-X PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NIL-10-2000 BEARING NO.A.Sa.Ka.Vahi.426.99-2000 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-X PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE LAND SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE. IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16252 WP No. 64610 of 2012 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the October, 2000 order in proceeding No.A.Sa.Ka.Vahi.426.99-2000 marked at Annexure-X. In terms of the said order, the second respondent Committee has rejected the petitioners’ application seeking regularisation of certain extent of land filed by one Balaram Kandaswamy. The impugned order at Annexure-X would reveal that the petitioners’ application is rejected on the premise that it is a gomala land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a bar to grant gomala land. In case, some portion of gomala is found to be in possession of the persons eligible for grant, same can be granted if the requirements to grant gomala land are met. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16252 WP No. 64610 of 2012 3. It is urged that the Deputy Commissioner is required to carry out the exercise under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to ascertain as to how much gomala land is required for the purpose and excess land has to be kept apart and excess land has to be granted for site less persons. 4. It is his further submission that the impugned order could not have been passed without hearing the parties. 5. In support of his contention, he would place reliance on the judgment of the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the State of Karnataka by its Secretary Revenue Department and Others vs. Holeyappa and Others1. 6. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the Committee is justified in rejecting the application 1 ILR 2007 KAR 259 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16252 WP No. 64610 of 2012 on the premise that the said land is gomala land and the petition is not maintainable. 7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 8. It is noticed that Section 94-A provides for grant of gomala land under Rule 97 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 under certain circumstances, provides for grant of gomala land, there is nothing on record to indicate whether the procedure contemplated under Rule 97 is followed or not. It is also not forthcoming as to whether the petitioners have been heard before passing the impugned order rejecting the application. 9. Under these circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the following order is passed. (i) The impugned order is set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16252 WP No. 64610 of 2012 (ii) The matter is referred to second respondent Committee to consider the petitioners claim in accordance with the procedure prescribed after issuing notice to the petitioners and after hearing the petitioners in this behalf. (iii) It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. (iv) All contentions kept open. (v) Till the petitioners’ claim is considered in accordance with law, respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 7