- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 105132 OF 2014 (LR) BETWEEN: THE KISHKINDA TRUST, A REGISTERED TRUST HANUMANAHALLI, ANEGUNDI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL, BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SMT. SHAMA PAWAR W/O. ADAM SHAFIRO, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/O. HANUMANAHALLI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, HAMPI WORLD HERITAGE AREA MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, HAMPI, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER NO.kam Bhu.Su.2002-03-51 DATED 18/19-08-2006, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.22 11:20:01 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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 order dated 18.08.2006 at Annexure-A. 2. In terms of the said order dated 18.08.2006, the permission granted to the petitioner under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act of 1961’,) is recalled and the property is ordered to be confiscated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the facts of the case would contend that petitioner being a registered Trust applied for permission to purchase the agricultural land and the permission was granted under Section 109 of the Act of 1961. The permission dated 24.11.2003 is marked at Annexure-E. 4. The said order would indicate that the permission is granted subject to certain conditions and it is also stated that in case of violation of any of the conditions incorporated in the said - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 order, the Government is competent to take further action as advised in law. 5. It appears that a complaint is filed on the premise that the property could not have been purchased by the petitioner - Trust for non-agricultural use on the premise that the property is falling within the protected zone. 6. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter has passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, it is stated that the Tahsildar has issued the notice to the petitioner and petitioner's response is not satisfactory and Deputy Commissioner holds that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions and accordingly has passed the impugned order. 7. It is noticed from the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner has concluded that the petitioner has put up a structure in the petition property without obtaining the necessary permission from the Competent Authority. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the permission granted under Section 109 Act of 1961 is conditional subject to petitioner fulfilling all the terms - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 and conditions imposed in the said order and the order itself would indicate that in case of violation, the State is competent to take action for violation. 9. It is further urged by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Deputy Commissioner has exercised jurisdiction under Section 109(ii) of the Act of 1961 and as such, urges that the petition be dismissed. 10. Learned advocate for respondent No.3 would also support the impugned order and would urge that the permission granted is in violation of the notification dated 22.10.1988 declaring certain area as protected zone and the said property falls under the said protected zone as such, the permission could not have been granted under Section 109 Act of 1961. 11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained the permission under Section 109 of the Act of 1961 to purchase the agricultural land for non-agricultural use. Section 109(2) of the Act of 1961 reads as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 “109. Certain lands to be exempt from certain provisions. (1) xxx (1-A) xxx (1-B) xxx (2) – Where any condition or restriction specified in the notification under sub-section (1), has been contravened, the State Government or as the case may be, the Deputy Commissioner may after holding an enquiry as it or he deems fit, cancel the exemption granted under that sub-section and the land in respect of which such cancellation has been made, shall, as penalty be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. No amount is payable therefore: Provided that, any of the Company or Organization, after a period of seven years from the date of obtaining permission under Section 109, for the purpose of expansion of project or to tide over the financial crisis or for changing of land usages, submit application, which shall be considered by the High Power Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to Government subject to such conditions as deemed fit on case to case basis.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 13. Section 109(ii) of the Act of 1961 enables the Deputy Commissioner or the State Government to pass appropriate orders after holding enquiry, in case, it is found that the conditions imposed while passing orders under Section 109 of the Act of 1961 are violated. 14. It is noticed from the impugned order that the Deputy Commissioner refers to the notice said to have been issued by the Tahsildar. The copy of the said notice is not produced before the Court and apart from that, the Deputy Commissioner has not heard the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the order on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar. 15. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside for not following the procedure contemplated under Section 109 of the Act of 1961. 16. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15913 WP No. 105132 of 2014 ii. Impugned order dated 18.08.2006 marked at Annexure-A is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal. iv. The Deputy Commissioner shall hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. vi. All contentions kept open. vii. The petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal on 15.12.2025 at 03:00 p.m. without any further notice. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 7