- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 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. 63469 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAOSAHEB S/O KEDAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DEAD BY LR9S., DEVANAND S/O RAOSAHEB PATIL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHIVANAND S/O RAOSAHEB PATIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. MALLAPPA S/O RASAGOUDA @ APPASHEB PATIL, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O KALLOTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. UMESH S/O BASAGOUDA @ APPASAHEB PATIL, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOTI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. & PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ATHANI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. BASAGOUDA S/O SIDAGOUDA GOUDAPPANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/A. SHEGUNASHI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. 5. ASHOK S/O SIDAGOUDA APPANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. SHEGUNASHI, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM. & RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2012 IN APPEAL NO.676/2006 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE (BELGLAUM CAMP), PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2006 IN LND/VIVA/171/1998-99 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-B, UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2000 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Registry to delete the name of Sri R M Kulkarni. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned counsel appearing for private respondents No.3, 4 and 5. 3. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 13.07.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.1 and also the order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.676/2006. 4. In terms of the order dated 13-07-2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner marked at Annexure - B, the petitioners application for grant of alluvial land adjacent to Sy. No.2/1 and 2/2 of Agrani Nala is rejected. The petitioners appeal challenging the said order of the Deputy Commissioner is rejected by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 5. Certain facts are not in dispute: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 - Petitioners sold Sy. No. 2/1 measuring 4 acres and Sy. No. 2/2 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas of Kallatti village, Taluk Athani, District Belgaum to respondents No.4 and 5 under registered sale deeds. These sale transactions are not disputed. The claim is in respect of 4 acres of alluvial land in Sy. No.2/1 and 4 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 2/2. After the purchase of the land, respondents No.4 and 5 applied for grant of alluvial land and under Section 92 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('Act, 1964'). - The Deputy Commissioner noticing the fact that the alluvial lands are adjacent to the lands purchased by respondents No. 4 and 5, granted the aforementioned lands measuring 4 acres and 4 acres 30 guntas respectively. Said order is called in question by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed Writ Petitions No.2074 and 2075/2001 challenging the said order. The Writ Petitions were also dismissed against which petitioners filed two Writ Appeals No.3370-3371/2001. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 In the aforementioned Writ Appeals disposed of on 18.06.2001, the Division Bench of this Court observed that the Deputy Commissioner has to conduct an enquiry as to how much of alluvial land is formed before and after the aforementioned sale in favour of respondents No.4 and 5. It is also observed by the Division Bench of this Court that after ascertaining the aforementioned facts, the Deputy Commissioner has to pass appropriate orders considering the claim of the petitioners and contesting private respondents. After the aforementioned order in writ appeal the Deputy Commissioner has undertaken the exercise of ascertaining as to how much alluvial land is formed, before sale and rejected the petitioners claim despite coming to a conclusion that alluvial lands were formed before the aforementioned sale deeds of 1993. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to the observation of the Division Bench in Writ Appeals No.3370 and 3371/2001 referred to above, would submit that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 Division Bench of this Court has held that the petitioners have a right to claim the alluvial land, in case the alluvial land is formed before the aforementioned sale. It is his submission that respondents No. 4 and 5 will get a right to acquire the land only in case the petitioners refuse the offer for grant of alluvial land on payment of three times the revenue payable to the said land. Thus, it is urged that without there being any refusal on the part of the petitioners for grant of aforementioned alluvial land, respondents No. 4 and 5 could not have been granted the land and both Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal have misconstrued the order of the Division Bench and have wrongly rejected the petitioners claim for grant of alluvial lands referred to above. 7. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 would urge that the Division Bench has only directed the Deputy Commissioner to ascertain the fact as to whether the alluvial lands were formed before or after the sale and if it is formed before the sale, to what extent it is formed before and after the sale. It is his submission that the Division Bench did not hold that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 the petitioners are entitled for grant of land in case the alluvial land was formed before the sale of the properties. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. It is indeed true that the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned Writ Appeals has directed the Deputy Commissioner and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "If there is evidence to indicate the whole or part of the alluvial land was in existence prior to the date of sale, then only, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider whether at all the appellants can be said to have acquired any right in respect of those lands or in other words, whether, if those lands or part of them were offered to them, whether they would have had a right of refusal. Depending on the outcome of this enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders". 10. It is well settled principle of law that order of the Court cannot be read in piecemeal. It has to be read in the context of the case. The relevant portion of the order which speaks about the context is extracted as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 "The real question is as to whether, if the offer has come only at a point of time after the sale, whether the legal position as canvassed by Mr. Hebbali would hold good. As indicated by us earlier, he has only submitted that Section has to be construed in relation to the date on which the consideration was done by the authorities or rather the date when the offer was made by the authorities and that assuming any rights had vested in the appellants at an earlier point of time, even if the land had been then formed, that those rights have now merged with the rights of Respondents No. 4 and 5. We refrain from recording any findings with regard to this aspect for the reason that it is purely hypothetical and would be depending on the factual position namely, the question as to whether there is evidence to indicate that the whole or part of the alluvial land had been formed prior to the date of the sale". 11. On a reading of the aforementioned order, it is very much evident the question as to whether the petitioners have a right to apply for grant of alluvial land or have a right of first purchase if the alluvial land was formed before the sale, was not adjudicated and decided in favour of the petitioners. That question was kept open. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 12. The Court has specifically refrained from giving any finding on this question. And in addition to that, as already noticed, the Court has also observed that depending upon the outcome of this enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner shall pass appropriate orders. There is no direction to the Deputy Commissioner to grant the land in favour of the petitioners even in a situation where the Deputy Commissioner finds that alluvial land was formed before the execution of the sale deeds. Thus, the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to alluvial land depends on interpretation of Section 92 of the Act, 1964. 13. Section 92 of the Act, 1964 reads as under:- <Grant of Alluvial land vested in Government.- (1) When it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any alluvial land, which vests under Section 81 in the State Government may, with due regard to the interests of the public revenue, be disposed of, he shall offer such land to the holder or occupant, if any, after bank or shore on which such alluvial land has formed. (2) The price of the land so offered shall not exceed three times the annual assessment thereof. (3) If the said holder or occupant shall refuse the offer, the Deputy Commissioner may dispose of the land under Section 91 without any restrictions as to the price thereof.= - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 14. Section 92 of the Act, 1964 as can be noticed does not mandate the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the alluvial land in favour of the adjoining holder. However, it gives the discretion to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the alluvial land in favour of the adjoining holder if, the Deputy Commissioner finds that such disposal would be in the interest of public revenue. Another rider is, the land has to be offered to the holder or occupant of any of the bank or shore on which the alluvial land has been formed. In other words, the offer should be first made to the person who is occupying the adjacent land to the alluvial land. 15. Admittedly, petitioners have not filed any application to purchase the alluvial land when they were holding property bearing Sy.Nos.2/1 and 2.2 i.e. before they sold the property in the year 1993. The claim for the land by the petitioners emerged only after they sold the property and the purchasers filed an application for grant of land. Thus, when the Deputy Commissioner took a decision to sell the property keeping in mind the public revenue, the Deputy Commissioner had to make an offer only to respondents No.4 and 5, who were admittedly the only adjoining holders of the aforementioned alluvial land. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 16. That being the position, there was no scope under Section 92 of the Act, 1964 to make an offer to the erstwhile owners of Sy.Nos.2/1 and 2/2. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 18. At this juncture, Sri Hebballi, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 an instructions from respondents No.4 and 5 submits that since the petitioners have sold the property to respondents No.4 and 5 in the year 1993, respondents No.4 and 5 intend to transfer 4 acres of land in the aforementioned land granted in favour of the petitioners, if the petitioners bear the registration and stamp duty expenses. 19. The said submission is placed on record. 20. The gesture on the part of respondents 4 and 5 is highly appreciated by this Court. 21. Hence the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16225 WP No. 63469 of 2012 ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 2 &