- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100771 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN SHRI. HARIHARRAO S/O RAGHUNATHRAO PATWARDHAN AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O 549/A, RAMA PALACE, MADHAVPUR, VADGAON, BELAGAVI-590005 TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001, TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI- 590001 TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI 4. THE TAHASILDAR Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 BELAGAVI-590001 TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI …. RESPONDENTS I. SHRI. MALLESH S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO. 4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. II. SMT. AVVAKKA W/O DURGAPPA KOLKAR AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO. 264, AMBEDKAR GALLI BENAKANAHALLI VILLAGE. TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-591108. III. SHRI. DEELIP S/O BHAVAKU MANDOLKAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO. 4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. IV. SMT. SUJATA D/O SHRIPADA CHOUGULE AFTER MARRIAGE SUJATA W/O DEELIP MANDOLKAR AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. V. SHRI. BALAKRISHNA S/O YALLAPPA KONKANE AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O: H.NO. 958/2, YALLUR VILLAGE TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590005. VI. SHRI. SIDRAL S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO. 44, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI COLONY, BELAGAVI-590016 VII. SHRI. SAMPAT S/O ARJUN CHOUGULE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: PLOT NO. 09, SEC NO.9, MALMARUTI MM EXTENTION, BELAGAVI-590016 VIII. SMT. SUSHILA W/O BHAVAKU MANDOLKAR - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 AGE: 69 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. IX. SMT SHOBHA W/O SIDDAPPA SANGANAVAR. AFTER MARRIAGE SHOBHA SHAM CHOUGULE AGE: 55 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. X. SHRI. SHAM S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. XI. SMT. PARVATI W/O RAMLING CHOUGULE AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4124, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. XII. SMT. RENUKA S/O NANDU KAMBLE (DECEASED) XIII. SMT. RENUKA GOPAL CHOUGULE AFTER MARRIAGE RENUKA BALKRISHNA KOKANE AGE: 50 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.958/2, YALLUR VILLAGE TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI-590005. XIV. SMT. SURESH S/O FAKIRAPPA METRI. (DECEASED) XV. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O SHRIDHAR KAMBLE AGE: 57 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.897, AMBEDKAR GALLI KAKATI. BELAGAVI-591113. XVI. SHRI. RAMESH S/O ARJUN CHOUGULE AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: PLOT NO. 09, SEC NO.9, MALMARUTI MM EXTENTION, BELAGAVI-590016 XVII. SHRI. BHARATI BHAVAKU MANDOLKAR AFTER MARRIAGE BAHARATI RAM NESARAKAR AGE: 54 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: BELAGAVI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 FLAT NO. A/101, JAGRUTI APARTMENT RADHA BAI MHATRE ROAD, NEAR VITTAL MANDIR, DAHISAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400068 XVIII. SHRI KAMALA GOPAL CHOUGULE. (DECEASED) XIX. SHRI SANJAY GURUPAD SULAGEKAR AGE: 53 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.06, SECTOR NO.5 SHREE NAGAR BELAGAVI-590010. XX. SMT. RAJASHRI S/O ASHOK METRI AFTER MARRIAGE RAJASHRI PRAKASH CHOUGULE AGE: 46 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.43, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI COLONY, BELAGAVI-590016 XXI. SMT. LAXMI W/O PARSHURAM CHOUGULE (DECEASED) XXII. SMT. REKHA BASAVANI CHALAWADI AGE: 63 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.613, MAIN ROAD SAMBRA VIILAGE, BELAGAVI-591124. XXIII. SMT. NILAWWA W/O CHANGAPPA KOKANE AGE: 56 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.958/1, MAHATAM FULE GALLI YALLUR VILLAGE BELAGAVI-590005. XXIV. SHRI. SACHIN S/O YALLAPPA KOLAKAR AGE: 40 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.74/1, MARKANDEYA NAGAR BELAGAVI-590010. XXV. SHRI. SATISH GURUPRASAD SULAGEKAR AGE: 55 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.06, SECTOR NO.5 SHREE NAGAR BELAGAVI-590010. XXVI. SHRI. ANAND S/O YALLAPPA KAMBLE (DECEASED) XXVII. SHRI. RAMA S/O KALLAPPA KOLAKAR AGE: 78 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.649/2 AMBEDKAR GALLI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 ANGOL BELAGAVI-590006. XXVIII. SHRI. PRAKASH S/O GOPAL CHOUGULE AGE: 48 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.43, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI COLONY BELAGAVI-590016. XXIX. SHRI. ASHOK FAKIRAPPA METRI (DECEASED) XXX. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O MALLAPPA RAYAVVGOL AGE: 47 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.468, BASAVANKUDACHI AMBEDKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-591124. XXXI. SHRI. SIDDAPPA RAMA ASHTEKAR (DECEASED) XXXII. SHRI. RAMA GUNAJI MAHAR @ NESARAKAR AGE: 68 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: BELAGAVI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. A/101, JAGRUTI APARTMENT RADHA BAI MHATRE ROAD, NEAR VITTAL MANDIR, DAHISAR (WEST) MUMBAI 400068 XXXIII. SHRI. SIDRAI S/O YALLAPPA KAMBLE (DECEASED) XXXIV. SHRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O BHIMSEN CHOUGULE AGE: 49 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4124, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGARL GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. XXXV. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O DURGAPPA KOLKAR AGE: 48 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.264, AMBEDKAR GALLI BENAKANHALLI, BELAGAVI 591108. XXXVI. SHRI. RAJU KALLAPPA KAMBLE (DEACEASED) XXXVII. SMT. GOURI W/O PRALHAD ALAGAWADI. AFTER MARRIAGE GOURI MALLESH CHOUGULE AGE: 56 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4126, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE KANGARL GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 XXXVIII. SHRI. JAYASHREE @ JAYAMALA MAHADEV BADAWANCHE AGE: 63 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4137, KANGARL GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. XXXIX. SHRI. ANJANA GUNDU REVALE. AFTER MARRIAGE ANJANA SHIDRAM CHOUGULE AGE: 54 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.44, ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI PLOT, BELAGAVI 590016. XL. SMT. SUVARNA W/O DAYANAND DHALE AFTER MARRIAGE SUVARNA RAMESH CHOUGULE AGE: 51 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.45 ASHRAYA PLOT VANTAMURI PLOT, BELAGAVI 590016 XLI. SHRI. ANUPAMA W/O PRALHADARAO ALAGAWADI AGE: 58 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.1050, ANANT SHYAN GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. XLII. SHRI. KIRAN MAHADEV BADAVANACHE AGE: 51 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.4137, KANGRAL GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. XLIII. SHRI. BHASKAR RAMCHANDRA @ RAMRAO HAMPIHOLI AGE: 60 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: PLOT NO.69 LORD VENKATESHWAR COLONY BAUXITE ROAD KANGALI (KH), BELAGAVI 590010. XLIV. SHRI. KANCHANA GUNDU REWALE AFTER MARRIAGE KANCHAN MARUTI KARENNAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.335/0, INDRA NAGAR, ANGOL BELAGAVI 590006. XLV. SHRI. SANJAY PRALHAD ALAGWADI AGE: 51 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.1050, ANANT SHYAN GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. XLVI. SHRI. LALITA W/O JYOTIBA PATIL (DECEASED) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 XLVII. SMT. VARSHA W/O BALKRISHNA DHAMNEKAR AFTER MARRIAGE VARSHA VIJAY MANOLKAR AGE: 46 YEARS OCC; AGRICULTURE R/O: H.NO.3399, GONDALI GALLI, BELAGAVI 590001. XLVIII. SRI. RAMA S/O FAKIRAPPA CHAVAN AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO. 39/19, 3 CROSS VAIBHAV NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010. … IMPLEADING APPLICANTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY., AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. NAGARATNA S. PATTAR., ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED IMPLEADING APPLICANTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2025 BRG NO. LRM: (66):SR:SR:539+451 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.09.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the Order dated 10.01.2025 brg No. LRM (66):SR:SR:539+451 passed by R3 vide Annexure-L in the interest of justice and equity. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the order dated 8.6.2007 brg No. KLR-CR/07/07-08 passed by the R3 vide Annexure-H in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing the R3 to allow the Declaration on Form No.11 dated: 28/12/1974 pursuant to Annexure-B and C submitted by the Family of the petitioner in respect of land brg Svy No.240/2D/1 measuring to an extent of 100 acres and land brg Svy. No.240/2D/2 measuring to an extent of 100 acres situated at Hangaragi Village, Tq and Dist: Belagavi, in the interest of justice and equity. iv. Issue an appropriate direction by directing the R2 to R4 to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of land brg Svy No. 240/2D/1 measuring to an extent of 100 Acres and land brg Svy No. 240/2D/2 measuring to an extent of 100 Acres situated at Hangaragi Village, Tq and Dist: Belagavi in Column No. 9 to 12 of the record of rights by deleting the name of the Third parties if any, in the interest of justice and equity v. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The Petitioner claims that the family of the Petitioner is the original owner of the land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/1 measuring to an extent of 100 Acres and land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/2 measuring to an extent of 100 Acres situated at Hangaragi Village, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 Belagavi Taluk and District. To establish such a claim, the Petitioner has produced the Record of Rights, Tenancy, and Crops ('RTC' for short) in respect of the aforesaid lands from the year 1966-1967. 3. The lands having been classified as 'E' Class land. The family of the Petitioner had filed a declaration in Form No.11 on 28.12.1974 after the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act, 1961' for short) in compliance with Section 66 of the Act. A mining lease had also been executed in favour of the Firm, namely Dalachand Bahadursingh Firm of Calcutta, from the year 1941, which had been renewed from time to time. 4. After the filing of Form No.11, the matter had been referred before Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, who, instead of allowing Form No.11, had held that the family of the Petitioner is holding excess land to the extent of 147 Acres and 24 Guntas - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 and directed them to surrender the excess land in question vide its order dated 25.07.1977. This order came to be challenged by the Petitioner in W.P.No.19580-81/1979, which came to be transferred to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority on its constitution. Since the Authority was abolished, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.62472/2010 before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 18.10.2011, had reserved liberty to the Petitioner to file a civil petition seeking for transfer of proceedings from the Karnataka Land Reforms Appellate Authority. Thereafter, C.P.No.505/2012 came to be filed, which came to be renumbered as W.P.No.103302/2015, wherein vide order dated 03.01.2024, this Court by observing that the land is 'E' Class land, had remitted the matter to Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner for Fresh Consideration. 5. Even when the proceedings were pending, Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, had recommended the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 allotment of land in question to third persons under Section 77(1) of the Act for agricultural purposes vide order dated 08.06.2007. Thereafter, the Petitioner had submitted an application for spot inspection to ascertain the status of possession. 6. The Revenue Inspector, having carried out the spot inspection and submitted a report dated 15.11.2024 stating that the land in question is unfit for agriculture. It is thereafter that Respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner has rejected Form No.11 filed by the family of the Petitioner on the sole ground that the Petitioner had not challenged the allotment made by the Deputy Commissioner to third parties without ascertaining the fact that the land was 'E' Class land and is not fit for agricultural purposes. It is challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner as also the order of the Assistant Commissioner that the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 7. Sri Pruthvi K.S., learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner: 7.1. Refers to Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “2. Definitions. (18) “land” means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house-site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes;” 7.2. By referring to the definition of land, he submits that land under Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961, could only mean land which is used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house- site. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 7.3. He therefore submits that it is only as regards land coming within the definition of Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961, that the Deputy Commissioner could exercise his powers. The land under Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 is further classified into A, B, C and D, which are fit for cultivation, and 'E' class land, which is not fit for agricultural activities. 7.4. He therefore submits that the question of holding excess land or otherwise would have to be considered with reference to whether the land could be put to agricultural use or not. If the land cannot be put to agricultural use, the same does not come within the purview of the KLR Act, 1961 and the question of the land being excess or otherwise does not arise. There is a requirement for an enquiry under Section 66 of the KLR Act, 1961, and thereafter the Assistant - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 Commissioner was required to pass appropriate orders. 7.5. 'E' Class land cannot also be considered for the purpose of deciding excess land in terms of the ceiling on land holdings under Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1961. The same is not applicable and the question of surrendering the alleged excess land in terms of Section 67 of the KLR Act, 1961 would not at all arise. 7.6. This Court, having categorically come to a conclusion that the land was 'E' Class land, it was but required for the Assistant Commissioner to accept the same and pass necessary orders instead of rejecting the application on the ground that the challenge to the allotment was made by the Deputy Commissioner, has not been made. More so when the allotment made by the Deputy Commissioner was without the knowledge of the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 Petitioner, whose Form No.11 was pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner. 7.7. The Revenue Inspector having submitted a report that the land was unfit for cultivation has also not been looked into rendering the impugned order bad in law. 7.8. The finding of Respondent No.3 that the land is ‘D’ Class land is without any merit. More so, when this Court has held that the land to be ‘E’ Class land, the earlier order dated 25.07.1977 had been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.19580-81/1979, W.P.No.62472/2010 and C.P.No.505/2012, which came to be converted to W.P.No.103302/2015. This Court, having observed that the land is ‘E’ Class land, the Assistant Commissioner could not have held otherwise. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 7.9. His submission is that, knowing fully well of the pendency of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner and his family, the Deputy Commissioner had illegally allotted the land to third parties. The said allotment is bad in law. Inasmuch as ‘E’ Class land could not have been so allotted and no such allotment could have been made without notice having been issued to the Petitioner. 7.10. On these grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the relief sought for to be granted. 8. Smt. Nagarathna S. Pattar, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants, submits that: 8.1. The impleading applicants are the allottees of land for the purpose of agriculture out of the land claimed by the Petitioner in all amounting to 48 persons. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 8.2. She submits that the land has been allotted to them for agriculture purposes and as such they are required to be heard in the matter. In furtherance of which they were heard. 8.3. Her submission is that allotment of land having been made by Deputy Commissioner. The impleading applicants were not aware of any pending proceedings filed by the Petitioner and all his family members. The pendency or otherwise of those proceedings cannot come in the way of the allotment made in favour of the impleading applicants numbering 48. 8.4. The Deputy Commissioner having passed an order, the impleading applicants being granted the land, being in occupation of the property their possession cannot be disturbed. Pendency of the Petitioner's application has no bearing insofar as the allotment made in favour of the impleading applicants. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 9. Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA would submit that: 9.1. The land has been granted in favour of 48 persons, who are the impleading applicants, they being landless persons. Though writ petition was filed, there being no stay order, the Respondents have acted on the same and the Deputy Commissioner having allotted the property cannot be found fault with. 9.2. Merely because the writ petition was filed before this Court, there was no need for the Deputy Commissioner not to proceed with allotment to landless laborers. 9.3. Insofar as the RTCs for the year 1999-2000 are concerned, nowhere it is mentioned that the land is E Class land and the name of the Government having been entered in the RTCs on 25.07.1977, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly exercised his rights and powers under the KLR Act, 1961. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 9.4. With regard to the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, he submits that merely because the Petitioner has not used the land for cultivation purposes, the same cannot result in a conclusion that the land is uncultivable. Hence, he submits that the writ petition is required to be dismissed. 10. Heard Sri Prithvi K., learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4, Smt. Nagaratna S. Pattar, learned counsel for impleading applicants and perused papers. 11. The points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: 1) Whether ‘E’ Class land could be considered for the purpose of declaring excess land in terms of Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961? 2) When an application is pending before the Assistant Commissioner under Form No. 11, could the Deputy - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 Commissioner allot the land to any other person or persons for agricultural activities? 3) Whether the rejection of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner is in accordance with law? 4) Whether the allotment of land in favour of 48 applicants is in accordance with law? 5) what order? 12. I answer the above points as under: 13. ANSWER TO POINT No.1:- Whether 'E' Class land could be considered for the purpose of declaring excess land in terms of Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961? 13.1. Section 63 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: “63. Ceiling on land.—(1) No person who is not a member of a family or who has no family and no family shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, be entitled to hold, whether as land owner, landlord or tenant or as a mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one capacity and partly in another, land in excess of the ceiling area. (2) The ceiling area for a person who is not a member of a family or who has no family or for a family shall be ten units: - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 Provided that in the case of a family consisting of more than five members the ceiling area shall be ten units plus an additional extent of two units for every member in excess of five, so however that the ceiling area shall not exceed twenty units in the aggregate. (2A) The ceiling area for a person who is tenant under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 5 shall be forty units. (3) In the case of a family the ceiling area shall be applied to the aggregate of the lands held by all the members of the family, including the ‘stridhana’ land. (4) In calculating the extent of land held by a person who is not a member of a family but is a member of a joint family and also in calculating, the extent of land held by a member of a family who is also a member of a joint family, the share of such member in the lands held by a joint family shall be taken into account and aggregated with the lands, if any, held by him separately and for this purpose such share shall be deemed to be the extent of land which would be allotted to such person had there been a partition of the lands held by the joint family. (5) In respect of lands owned or held under a private trust,— (a) where the trust is revocable by the author of the trust, such lands shall be deemed to be held by such author or his successor in interest; and (b) in other cases, such lands shall be deemed to be held by the beneficiaries of the trust in proportion to their respective interests in such trust or the income derived therefrom. Explanation.—Where a trust is partly private and partly public this sub-section shall apply only to lands covered by that part of the assets of the trust which is relatable to the private trust. (6) In calculating the extent of land held by a person who is not a member of a family or who has no family or by a member of a family, the share of such person or member - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 in the lands held by a co-operative farm shall be taken into account. (7) (a) No educational, religious or charitable institution or society or trust, of a public nature, capable of holding property, formed for an educational, religious or charitable purpose shall hold land except where the income from the land is appropriated solely for the institution or the society or the trust concerned. Where the land is so held by such institution, society or trust, the ceiling area shall be twenty units. (b) If any question arises whether the income from the land is solely appropriated for the institution, society or trust, it shall be decided by the prescribed Authority. The decision of the prescribed Authority shall be final. Where the prescribed Authority decides that the income is not so appropriated, the land held by the institution, society or trust shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of sections 66 to 76 shall, so far as may be, apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State Government of such land. The provisions of this sub- section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in this Act. (8) (a) No sugar factory shall hold land except solely for purpose of research or seed farm or both. Where land is held by a sugar factory for such purpose the ceiling area shall be fifty units. (b) If any question arises whether any land held by a sugar factory is solely used for the purpose of research or seed farm or both, the decision of the prescribed Authority shall be final and the land not held for the said purpose shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of sections 66 to 76 shall, so far as may be, apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State Government of such land. The provisions of this sub- section shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in this Act. (9) In the case of any person holding land cultivated by plantation crops, the ceiling area in respect of other land held by him shall be determined taking into consideration, the agricultural land referred to in item (ii) of the Explanation to section 104. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 (10) Notwithstanding anything in the preceeding sub- section, if any person has,— (i) after the 18th November 1961 and before the 24th January 1971 transferred any land the extent of which if added to the other land retained by him could have been deemed to be surplus land before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act; or (ii) after the 24th January 1971 transferred any land, otherwise than by partition or by donation to the 2 Karnataka Boodan Yagna Board established under the Karnataka Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1963 Karnataka Act 34 of 1963 or by sale to the tenant of such land in conformity with any law for the time being in force, then in calculating the ceiling area which that person is entitled to hold, the area so transferred shall be taken into account and the land exceeding the ceiling area so calculated shall be deemed to be in excess of the ceiling area notwithstanding that the land remaining with him may not in fact be in excess of the ceiling area. If by reason of such transfer the person’s holding is less than the area so calculated to be in excess of the ceiling area, then all his lands shall be deemed to be surplus land and the provisions of sections 66 to 76 shall, as far as may be, apply to the surrender to and vesting in the State Government of such excess land. Explanation.—For purposes of this sub-section the land shall be deemed to have been transferred if it has been transferred by act of parties (whether by sale, gift, mortgage with possession, exchange, lease or any other kind of disposition made inter vivos.)” 13.2. In terms of Section 63, the ceiling for any person is 10 units. In the present case, it is not the number of units which is important but the nature of the land which is required to be - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 considered. The word ‘land’, which has been used in Section 63, would have to be considered with reference to Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961. There is no separate definition of agricultural land in the KLR Act, 1961. Though 'agriculture' has been defined under Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961, the 'land' is defined as agricultural land. That is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto, including horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation, and tope but does not include house-site or land exclusively used for non-agriculture purposes. 13.3. Thus, applying the definition of 'land', it is clear that the land has to be agricultural land, which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes. If the land is not used or capable of - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 being used for agricultural purposes, the same would not come within the meaning, definition, ambit, and purview of Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1961. 13.4. The RTC's which have been produced by the Petitioner categorically indicate that the land is not capable of being used for agricultural purposes and has been classified as 'E' Class/Category land. The classification of land is made under (Schedule-I, Part - A) of the KLR Act, 1961, whereunder a 'land' can be classified under the following classifications: Classification of Lands A Class Lands having facilities for assured irrigation from such Government Canals and Government Tanks as are ²[x x x]2 capable of supplying water for growing two crops of paddy ³[or one crop of sugarcane] in a year. B Class i. Lands having facilities for assured irrigation from such Government Canals and Government Tanks as - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 are ?[x x x] capable of supplying water for growing only one crop of paddy in a year. ii. Lands irrigated by such lift irrigation projects constructed and maintained by the State Government as are ?[x x x] capable of supplying water for growing two crops of paddy? [or one crop of sugarcane] in a year. C Class i. Lands irrigated from any Government sources of irrigation, including lift irrigation projects constructed and maintained by Government other than those coming under A Class and B Class. ii. Lands on which paddy crop can be raised or areca crop is grown with the help of rain water. iii. Lands irrigated by lifting water from a river or Government canal or Government tank where the pumping installation or other devise for lifting water is provided and maintained by the land owner. Note:— (1) Lands having facilities for irrigation from a Government source where the system of water supply is suitable for growing only light irrigated crop namely, crops other than paddy and sugarcane shall come under this class. (2) Lands growing irrigated garden - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 crop will come under Classes ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ as the case may be depending upon the source of irrigation and the system of water supply. D Class Lands classified as dry but not having any irrigation facilities from a Government source. Note:- Lands growing paddy or garden crops not coming under A Class, B Class or C Class shall belong to this class. 13.5. A perusal of the above, it is seen that it is only land that is classified as A, B, C and D, are those that could be used for agricultural purposes. Class 'E' lands not being part of the above classification are those which cannot be used for agricultural purposes. That being the case, Class 'E' land would not come within the definition of land under Sub-Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961, and in turn would not come within the purview of Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1961. - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 13.6. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that 'E' Class land cannot be taken into consideration for determining excess land held by any person or family under Section 63 of the KLR Act, 1961. 14. ANSWER TO POINT No.2:- Whether when an application is pending before the Assistant Commissioner under Form No. 11, could the Deputy Commissioner allot the land to any other person or persons for agricultural activities? 14.1. Much has been sought to be made out by learned AGA that though Form No.11 had been filed by the Petitioner and his family members, there is no order of stay in the said proceedings, and as such, the Deputy Commissioner has gone ahead with allotting the land to the impleading applicants. 14.2. The only ground on which learned AGA has sought to contend is that there is no interim order which had been passed in the proceedings which had been filed. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 14.3. What the learned AGA has lost sight of is the aspect of lis pendens which would equally apply to the present proceedings inasmuch as it is only by way of a writ petition that the Petitioner could have challenged the order of rejecting Form No.11 and any action taken by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner vide such proceedings are pending would be subject to the orders passed in those proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner cannot be heard to say that since there was no order of stay, they have gone ahead and passed orders. Since they have passed orders, the same cannot be disturbed. When any proceedings are pending before any particular Authority, if an action is taken by any Authority as regards the land subject matter of those proceedings, any such action, needless to - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 say, would be subject to the result of those proceedings. 14.4. In the present matter the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that there is no stay has gone ahead and allotted the property to the impleading applicants. Respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner has on the ground of the Deputy Commissioner having allotted the land to the impleading applicants, contending that the said allotment has not been challenged has dismissed Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner. 14.5. There cannot be greater injustice which could have been meted out to the Petitioner than that done by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, each relying on the others orders. 14.6. As indicated supra, since Form No.11 was filed by the Petitioner and pending before the - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have stayed his hands and not allotted the lands to the impleading applicants and thereby creating a further complication of raising a hope in those impleading applicants that they would be granted the land which they could make use of. 14.7. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that merely because there was no stay order in the proceedings in Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner the Deputy Commissioner could not have gone ahead and allotted the lands to the impleading applicants. 15. ANSWER TO POINT No.3:- Whether the rejection of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner is in accordance with law? 15.1. The only reason why the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has not - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 challenged the allotment made in favour of the impleading applicants. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the land is the 'E' Class land and, was only in the year 1999-2000 the classification got removed from the RTCs. 15.2. The report of the Revenue Inspector is also not in dispute where the Revenue Inspector has indicated that the land is 'E' Class land, which has not been put to agricultural use. 15.3. The photographs which have been produced also indicate that the land has not been put to agricultural use either by the Petitioner or the impleading applicants. 15.4. On a specific query being posed to the learned counsel for the impleading applicants as to whether they are carrying out agricultural activities and if any document has been produced or can be produced by them in relation - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 thereto, she has categorically indicated that there are no such agricultural activities being carried on by the impleading applicants. 15.5. Looked at from all angles, the documents which are on record would categorically indicate that the land has not been put to agricultural use. The land in question is not agricultural land, but in fact it is 'E' category land, which would not come within the purview of land under Sub- Section (18) of Section 2 of the KLR Act, 1961. Thereby, it was but required for the Assistant Commissioner to allow Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner since the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, would not be applicable to the land other than agricultural land. 15.6. Thus, I answer point No.3 by holding that the rejection of Form No.11 filed by the Petitioner is not in accordance with law. - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 16. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4:-Whether the allotment of land in favour of 48 applicants is in accordance with law? 16.1. This aspect has been dealt with in answer to my earlier points. Suffice it to say that allotment could not have been made by the Deputy Commissioner while the application of the Petitioner was pending. Apart there from, the land not being fit for agricultural purposes, no allotment could have been made by the Deputy Commissioner and the land has also not been used for agricultural purposes by the impleading applicants. 16.2. Thus, I answer point No.4 by holding that respondent No.3 could not have allotted the land in question for agricultural purposes to the impleading applicants. 17. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: What Order? - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 17.1. In view of my answers to the above points, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 08.06.2007, passed by Respondent No.3, allotting the land to the impleading applicants, is quashed. iii. The order dated 10.01.2025 bearing No.LRM:(66):SR:SR:539+451 passed by Respondent No.3, rejecting Form No. 11 of the Petitioner at Annexure-L, is quashed. Consequently, the declaration filed by the Petitioner in Form No.11 dated 28.12.1974, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/1 and Sy.No.240/2D/2 of Hangaragi Village, Belagavi Taluk and District, is allowed. iv. A mandamus is issued directing Respondents Nos.2 to 4 to enter the name of the Petitioner in respect of land bearing Sy.No.240/2D/1 and Sy.No.240/2D/2 in Column Nos.9 & 12 of the Record of Rights by deleting the name of the - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14636 WP No. 100771 of 2025 impleading applicants within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. v. Repondents No.2 to 4 are also directed to allot alternate land to the impleading applicants as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE KTY List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3