- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102256 OF 2017 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. REVANAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA NINGANNAVAR @ APPANNAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. AMENDED V.O.D. 12.9.2024 2. NINGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA NINGANNAVAR @ APPANNAVAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 2(A) SHRISHAIL NINGAPPA NINGANNAVAR @ APPANANVAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2(B) CHANNAVVA W/O. MUTTAPPA YAKKUNDI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2(C) MANTAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA NINGANNAVAR @ APPANAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.18 10:31:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 DIST: BAGALKOT. 2(D) HEMAVVA CHINNAPPA JAGADAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. BASAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA NINGANNAVAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, BILAGI, TALUK, BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, INAM HANCHINAL, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 6. PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, BADAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. GUNDAPPA S/O. IRAPPA TAMBAKAD, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 8. IRAYYA S/O. AYYAPPA GANACHARI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 9. GUNDAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 10. NAGAYYA S/O. DHANAYYA GANACHARI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 11. BASAPPA APPASAHEB KOTI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 12. SHIVAPPA SANGAPPA GANIGER, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 13. NAGAYYA DANAYYA GANACHARI, BY LR KALAVVA NAGAYYA GANACHARI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 14. GUNDAPPA NINGAPPA BUDIHAL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 15. VITAL KADAPPA NAVI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 16. PANDAPPA YAMUNAPPA AMALAZERI, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 17. GUNDAPPA IRAPPA TAMBAKAD, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 18. CHINNAVVA PANDAPPA TAMBAKAD, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 19. BASAYYA SHRISHAILAYYA GANACHARI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 20. SHARANAYYA MALLAYYA GANACHARI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 21. SHIVAYYA MALLAYYA GANACHARI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 22. SIDDAPPA SHIRAPPA CHOUDHARI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 23. SHANTA NAGAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 24. GIRIMALLAYYA MALLAYYA NIDAGUNDIMATH, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 25. MALLAYYA BASAYYA MATHAPATI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 26. GUNDAPPA MALINGAPPA KAMBAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 27. SHANKARAYYA MALLAYYA NIDAGUNDIMATH, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 28. NILAKANTAYYA SHRISHAILAYYA GANACHARI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 29. GURAPPA GUNDAPPA KOTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: INAM HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R5 & R6; SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7 & R8; SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10; SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R11-R29) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED RECOMMENDATION BEARING NO.JIPAMBAA/ADALIT/AD-10/VINIDI-229/2016- 17/2615 DATED:30.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-B, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the recommendation dated 30.11.2016, whereby, the respondent-authorities have proceeded to recommend issuance of khata/further administrative action in respect of land bearing R.S.No.218 of Badagi village, Bilagi taluk, Bagalkot District. Brief facts: 2. The petitioners claimed to be the original owners of land bearing R.S.No.218 measuring 13 acres 21 guntas. It is stated that in the year 2002, they alienated an extent of 7 acres 25 guntas in favour of third parties. The remaining extent of 6 acres 3 guntas continues to stand in the name of the petitioners and is asserted to be agricultural land, assessed to land revenue and not acquired by any authority. While the petitioners have no objections for issuance of khata in respect of the land already sold, the grievance is that impugned recommendation dated - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 30.11.2016 proceeds on the entirety of R.S.No.218, without demarcating or ascertaining the sold extent and the retained extent, thereby exposing the petitioners’ remaining land to unwarranted administrative action. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that any recommendation for issuance of khata or regularization could only be confined to the extent of land sold by them. It is contended that their retained extent of 6 acres 3 guntas are agricultural lands and cannot be subjected to Panchayat khata or allied proceedings without conversion or acquisition in accordance with law. The impugned recommendation is vitiated by non-application of mind, as it proceeds on the entire survey number without extent wise segregation. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents justifies their recommendation by contending that the applications were received from beneficiaries/occupants pursuant to the Government circulars and that the proposal was processed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 administratively. It is asserted that the recommendation was made following internal correspondence and approvals and that no illegality is committed. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arise for consideration is: “Whether the recommendation dated 30.11.2016 is legally sustainable? 6. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have sold only 7 acres 25 guntas and a proposal or recommendation could have been made only to that extent and not in respect of the entire survey number. The settled law is that a recommendation can never travel beyond the factual foundation on which it rests. The impugned recommendation does not disclose any prior exercise of identifying the precise extent sold, segregating the sold land from the retained land or determining the legal character of retained portion. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 7. The petitioners submitted representation objecting to the issuance of khata in respect of their retained extent of land. Despite such objections, the competent authority proceeded to issue the recommendation without adverting or deciding the objection and without first ascertaining and demarcating the sold extent. The issuance of recommendation is without non application of mind and in violation of principles of natural justice. The recommendation proceeds on the assumption that the entire R.S.No.218 is available to khata, which is a jurisdictional error particularly when the portion of the land is claimed to be agricultural land assessed to land revenue and continuing in the petitioners’ name, the proper course for the authority was i) first to ascertain and demarcate the sold extent, ii) to confine consideration strictly in accordance with law. 8. The impugned recommendation, having been issued without following the essential sequence, cannot be sustained in the present form and accordingly the point - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The recommendation dated 30.11.2016 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-B) is hereby quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to the competent authority to reconsider the proposal, considering the objections filed by the petitioners, after due ascertainment and demarcation of the sold extant (if any), in accordance with law. iv. The retained extent of 6 acres 3 guntas, which according to the petitioners stand in the name of the petitioners shall also be considered, while considering the issuance of khata. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2255 WP No. 102256 of 2017 v. The exercise of reconsideration shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT CT-MCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35