- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB WA No. 100167 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 100167 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DHARWAD – 580 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, AGA) AND: SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ, S/O. ABDUL RAZAK PANCH, AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O. URDU SCHOOL ROAD, AT POST: UPPIN-BETAGERI, DHARWAD, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD-581 206. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103552/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB WA No. 100167 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.103552/2023, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 30.03.2022, cancelling his license under Rule 46-K of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1966 [hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'], was set aside. The operative part of the said order reads as under: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) Annexure-L dated 30.03.2022 passed by respondent No.1 is quashed. iii) Respondent No.1 is directed to hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter, proceed to pass the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB WA No. 100167 of 2024 order by following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 46-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- personally, to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad within 30 days, failing which, Member Secretary is directed to report the same to this court. v) Learned HCGP is directed to forward the certified copy of this order to respondent No.1 forthwith, for information and for necessary action. 2. The learned Single Judge has faulted the appellants in not conducting an enquiry as required under Rule 46-K of the said Rules, despite being directed to do so. It is the appellants’ case that, in fact, the respondent was afforded an opportunity of being heard as required under Rule 46-K of the said Rules. 3. The impugned order proceeds on the submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB WA No. 100167 of 2024 appellant, that the said procedure was not followed. Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order reads as under: “4. Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that the verbatim of Annexure-L is not similar to Annexure-H. However, he fairly concedes that procedure as contemplated for holding enquiry was not followed by the respondents.” 4. This Court is further informed that, pursuant to the direction issued in terms of the impugned order, the respondent was given an opportunity of being heard and an order dated 29.05.2024 has been passed reinstating him. Therefore, the grievance of the respondent does not survive. The question raised in the present appeal is rendered academic in view of the subsequent events. 5. The only grievance that survives is the levy of cost of ₹10,000/-. We note that Rule 46-K of the Rules does not expressly provide for conduct of any enquiry. It expressly requires that an opportunity of being heard be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9688-DB WA No. 100167 of 2024 afforded to the delinquent person against whom an adverse order is contemplated. According to the appellants, the said opportunity was afforded to the respondent. 6. In view of the above, we find merit in the contentions canvassed by the appellants. Accordingly, the direction to deposit costs of ₹10,000/- before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Dharwad, is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13