GURURAJ GANTIHOLE vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
WRIT APPEAL NO. 2030 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
GURURAJ GANTIHOLE
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT PREMASHRAYA, GANTIHOLE
BYNDOOR TALUK, BIJOOR POST
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SHIVANI SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
RAJATADRI, MANIPAL,
UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104.
3. TAHSILDAR,
TAHSILDAR OFFICE, KUNDAPUR TALUK,
KUNDAPUR 576 201.
4. K. GOPAL POOJARY,
S/O MANJU POOJARY,
'SHANTHI NILAYA', KANYANA,
KANYANA POST, KUNDAPUR TALUK - 576 232.
Digitally
signed by
MALA K N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
5. SRINIVAS,
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY,
SHANKARANARAYANA,
KUNDAPUR TALUK - 576 232.
6. DINESH HALLIHOLE,
S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAYAK,
HALLIHOLE POST,
BYNDOOR TALUK - 576 232.
7. HEMALATHA POOJARY,
W/O RAJU POOJARY,
HALLIHOLE POST,
BYNDOOR TALUK - 576 232.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I THARANATH POOJARY, AAG FOR
SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;
R6 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO i. CALL FOR
RECORDS AND ii. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.08.2026 PASSED IN WP No. 4097/2024 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN WP No.
4097/2024 AND iii. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS IN THIS
HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 06.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN
- 3 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
A personal request, political influence or the desire
to rehabilitate a leader who has lost political ground
cannot, by itself, furnish a justification for creating
an additional position or arrangement. The
circumstances suggest an attempt to secure a
position of authority through an indirect route and
to regain power through a back-door route, rather
than to address any genuine public necessity. The
creation of an additional position or arrangement
cannot be justified merely to facilitate the political
rehabilitation of a person who has lost ground or to
provide an indirect avenue for the restoration of lost
influence. The desire of an individual to cling on to
power cannot be permitted to dictate the course of
public administration. Power is entrusted to public
authorities to serve the people, not to provide a
refuge for those who have lost their political
standing. Public office cannot be treated as a
consolation prize for a defeated politician, nor can it
be converted into a reward for political loyalty.
Public office is a responsibility entrusted in the
public interest, not a privilege to be retained at any
cost or regained through political manoeuvring. To
permit otherwise would be to reduce public
- 4 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
administration to an instrument of personal
ambition, undermining the very purpose for which
governmental authority is entrusted to those who
exercise it. The State Government must, therefore,
remain above considerations of personal political
advancement and ensure that its decisions are
guided by public interest and genuine administrative
necessity, rather than by an attempt to
accommodate an individual’s desire to regain lost
authority.
The present intra-court appeal is directed against the
common order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition No.4097/2024 (KLR-RES). By the said
order, the writ petition challenging the constitution of the
Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter, ‘ the Act’ ), as
well as the constitutional validity of Rule 108-EE of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter, ‘ the
Rules ’), came to be dismissed.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by the ranks assigned to them before the learned
Single Judge.
- 5 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
I. CASE OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that he was elected
as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (for short, ‘MLA’) from
Byndoor Constituency in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative
Assembly Election (for short, ‘the 2023 Assembly Election’).
Following his election, he was appointed Chairman of the
Committee constituted under Section 94-A(1) of the Act read
with Rule 108-E of the Rules, vide Notification dated
02.11.2023.
4. According to the petitioner, before the Committee
headed by him could even commence its sittings, the State
Government/respondent No.1 issued Notification dated
04.12.2023 constituting an Additional Committee under Section
94-A(2-A) of the Act read with Rule 108-EE of the Rules. The
petitioner asserts that the notification was issued without any
material showing that the State Government had formed the
opinion that constitution of an Additional Committee was
necessary, as required by the statute. He further points out
that respondent No.4, who had contested against him in the
2023 Assembly Election and lost, was appointed Chairman of
the Additional Committee.
- 6 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
5. The petitioner further states that, by Notification
dated 26.12.2023, the jurisdictions of the two Committees
were demarcated. Under that arrangement, 12,313 pending
applications were allotted to the Committee headed by the
petitioner, while 23,983 applications were assigned to the
Additional Committee headed by respondent No.4. According to
the petitioner, the allocation of a substantially larger number of
applications to the Additional Committee, coupled with the
appointment of his defeated electoral opponent as its
Chairman, indicates that the Additional Committee was not
constituted out of any genuine necessity, but to undermine the
statutory role of the elected MLA.
6. On these grounds, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.4097/2024 seeking to quash the Notifications dated
04.12.2023 and 26.12.2023. He also challenged the validity of
Rule 108-EE of the Rules, contending that it gives the State
Government unguided discretion to appoint ‘a person’ as
Chairman of the Additional Committee without prescribing any
qualification, rank or class of person eligible for appointment.
On that basis, he sought a declaration that the Rule is violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter, ‘the
Constitution’).
- 7 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
II. CASE OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3:
7. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 opposed the writ petition,
contending that Section 94-A(2-A) of the Act and Rule 108-EE
of the Rules expressly authorise the constitution of an
Additional Committee. According to them, the State
Government’s opinion on the necessity of constituting such a
Committee is a matter of subjective satisfaction.
8. They further submitted that a substantial number of
applications were pending in Byndoor Hobli and Vandse Hobli
and that the Additional Committee was constituted to ensure
their expeditious disposal. Their case was that the State
Government had formed the requisite opinion having regard to
the pendency of applications, and that the appointment of
respondent No.4 as Chairman did not, by itself, render the
decision unlawful. They also denied that Rule 108-EE was
arbitrary or contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
III. CASE OF RESPONDENT NO. 4:
9. Respondent No.4 filed a separate statement of
objections, contending that the petitioner lacked locus standi to
challenge the Notification dated 04.12.2023. He maintained
- 8 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
that the Additional Committee was constituted because of the
large number of applications seeking regularisation of
unauthorised cultivation of Government land in Byndoor
Constituency. According to him, approximately 17,000 to
18,000 applications were pending in the area covered by the
petitioner’s Committee, while about 14,000 applications were
pending in Vandse Hobli, warranting an Additional Committee.
10. Respondent No.4 further submitted that his defeat
in the 2023 Assembly Election did not disqualify him from being
appointed Chairman of the Additional Committee. Since the
Rules prescribe no such disqualification, he contended that the
allegation of political motivation was unfounded.
IV. ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
11. By the common order dated 04.08.2026, the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. On the
question whether the State Government had formed the
requisite opinion before constituting the Additional Committee,
the learned Single Judge referred to an affidavit dated
29.07.2026 filed by the Tahsildar, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi
District, which was placed on record by the learned Additional
Advocate General. Relying on the figures of pending
- 9 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
applications set out in that affidavit, the learned Single Judge
accepted the submission that the pendency justified the
constitution of an Additional Committee.
12. The learned Single Judge also held that the
constitution of an Additional Committee fell within the State
Government’s domain and that its subjective satisfaction,
based on the number of pending applications, did not warrant
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. The learned Single Judge observed that judicial
review is directed primarily at the decision-making process and
that the decision itself would not ordinarily be interfered with.
As regards the challenge to Rule 108-EE, the learned Single
Judge recorded that the petitioner had not pressed that
challenge during arguments and therefore left the issue open
for consideration in appropriate proceedings. The writ petition
was dismissed accordingly.
14. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
preferred the present intra-court appeal.
- 10 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
V. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
15. We have heard Shri Aruna Shyam M., learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.Shivani Shetty,
learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel
assailed the order of the learned Single Judge, submitting that
the specific challenge regarding the absence of material
demonstrating formation of the requisite opinion by the State
Government had not been properly considered.
16. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, while
examining the validity of the Notification dated 04.12.2023, the
learned Single Judge relied on the Tahsildar’s affidavit dated
29.07.2026, filed nearly three years after the notification.
According to him, a subsequent affidavit could not establish
that the State Government had applied its mind to the
necessity of constituting the Additional Committee on
04.12.2023. He therefore contended that the record did not
disclose any material showing that the statutory condition had
been fulfilled when the notification was issued.
17. It was further contended that respondent No.4, who
had lost the 2023 Assembly Election to the petitioner, was
thereafter appointed Chairman of the Additional Committee, to
- 11 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
which nearly twice as many pending applications were allotted
as to the petitioner’s Committee. The learned Senior Counsel
submitted that these circumstances indicate that the power
under Section 94-A(2-A) was not exercised for the purpose
contemplated by the Act, but to circumvent the statutory role
of the elected MLA.
18. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
challenge to Rule 108-EE had not been examined in its proper
perspective. The Rule, according to him, leaves the State
Government with unfettered discretion to appoint any ‘person’
as Chairman of the Additional Committee, without prescribing
qualifications, rank or any guiding criteria, and is therefore
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
VI. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:
19. We have also heard Shri I.Tharanath Poojary,
learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of Shri
S.H.Raghavendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri P.D. Surana, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
- 12 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
20. The respondents supported the order of the learned
Single Judge. They submitted that Section 94-A(2-A) of the Act
empowers the State Government to constitute an Additional
Committee whenever it considers such a step necessary, and
that the decision in the present case was taken in view of the
large number of pending applications. According to them, the
question of necessity falls within the administrative domain of
the State Government and its subjective satisfaction is not
open to interference in judicial review unless illegality is
established.
21. Respondent No.4 submitted that his appointment as
Chairman could not be questioned merely because he had lost
the Assembly Election to the petitioner. The Rules contain no
such disqualification, and the allegation that his appointment
was politically motivated was said to be baseless. He also
contended that the petitioner could not claim an exclusive right
to decide every application for grant of land in Byndoor
Constituency.
22. As regards Rule 108-EE, the respondents contended
that the Rule had been in force since 27.09.1994 and that the
challenge was raised belatedly. They further submitted that the
- 13 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
Rule could not be invalidated merely because the composition
of the Additional Committee differed from that of the
Committee constituted under Section 94-A(1) of the Act.
VII. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
23. Having heard the parties and examined the records,
the following point arises for consideration:
“Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to interfere with the order passed by
the learned Single Judge?”
VIII. REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
24. At the outset, it is necessary to set out the relevant
statutory framework against which the facts of the present case
must be examined.
25. Section 94-A was inserted into the Act by Amending
Act No.2 of 1991 to provide for regularisation, subject to
prescribed conditions and payment of the requisite charges, of
certain cases of unauthorised occupation of Government land.
Sub-section (2-A), providing for constitution of one or more
Additional Committees, was subsequently inserted by
Amending Act No.33 of 1994.
- 14 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
26. The relevant portion of Section 94-A of the Act, as
it stood when the Notification dated 04.12.2023 was issued,
reads as follows:
“ 94A. Regularisation of certain cases of
unauthorised occupation by constituting committee
etc.— (1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed,
the State Government shall, by notification, constitute
for each constituency of the Legislative Assembly a
committee consisting of such number of members not
exceeding five of whom one shall be a member of
Legislative Assembly, for the purpose of grant land under
sub-section (4).
(2) The Tahsildar of the concerned taluk shall be the
secretary of the Committee.
(2A) The State Government may, if it is of the opinion
that it is necessary, constitute one or more additional
committees for a constituency for the purpose of grant of
land under sub-section (4)consisting of such number not
exceeding five, as may be prescribed and the State
Government shall nominate from among the members
one of them as the Chairman and another as the
Secretary of the Committee. When an additional
committee is constituted, the Deputy Commissioner shall
determine the jurisdictions of the committee and the
additional committee and transfer the pending
applications to the respective committee.
xxxxxxxxxxxx"
27. Rule 108-E of the Rules prescribes the composition
of the Committee. The relevant portion, as it stood on the date
of the Notification dated 04.12.2023, is set out below:
- 15 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
“ 108-E. Members of the Committee:- (1) The
Committee shall consist of the following members.–
(1) the Member of the Karnataka Legislative
Assembly representing the major part of the taluk;
(2) three persons nominated by the State
Government of whom one shall be a woman and
another shall belong to Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes.
(3) the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk.
The State Government shall nominate one of the
members of the Committee as Chairman
Provided that if such Member of the Legislative
Assembly belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes, the Member to be nominated shall not
necessarily belong to Scheduled Castes Scheduled
Tribes:
Provided further that where the member
representing major part of the Taluk is not available
or is not willing to be a member of the committee,
for any reason, the State Government may
nominate any other Member of the Legislative
Assembly as a member of the Committee.
xxxxxxxxxxxx“
28. The composition of an Additional Committee is
governed by Rule 108-EE of the Rules, which reads as follows:
“ 108-EE. Additional Committee.-
(1) The Additional Committee shall consist of the
following members, namely:
(a) a person nominated by the State Government as
Chairman;
- 16 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
(b) three persons nominated by the State Government
whom one shall be a Woman and another shall belong
to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes;
(c) the Tahsildar of the concerned taluk.
(2) The quorum of the Additional Committee shall be
two, of which one shall be the Tahsildar.”
29. The petitioner’s first challenge concerns the
exercise of power by the State Government under Section 94-
A(2-A) of the Act. A plain reading of that provision makes the
following requirements clear:
(i) The State Government must form an opinion that there
is a necessity to constitute an Additional Committee;
(ii) The necessity to constitute an Additional Committee
must be for the purpose of grant of land under Section
94-A (4) of the Act; and,
(iii) If the State Government forms such an opinion, then
the State Government may constitute an Additional
Committee.
30. It follows that formation of an opinion by the State
Government that an Additional Committee is necessary for the
purpose of granting land is a condition precedent to the
- 17 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
exercise of power under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Act. The
petitioner’s specific case is that the State Government did not
consider any material before forming such an opinion.
31. It is useful, in this context, to refer to the decisions
dealing with the requirement that an opinion must be formed
on relevant material before an administrative power can be
exercised.
32. In Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law
1
Board , the Supreme Court considered the Central
Government’s power under Section 237(b) of the Companies
Act, 1956, to direct an investigation into a company’s affairs.
The Court held that, although formation of the opinion is
subjective, the record must disclose circumstances capable of
supporting that opinion. The relevant observations are
extracted below:
“ 64. . . . . . . . . . That expression points out that
there must exist circumstances from which the
authority forms an opinion that they are suggestive
of the crucial matters set out in the three sub-
clauses. It is hard to contemplate that the
legislature could have left to the subjective process
both the formation of opinion and also the
existence of circumstances on which it is to be
founded. It is also not reasonable to say that the
clause permitted the authority to say that it has
1
1966 SCC OnLine SC 53
- 18 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
formed the opinion on circumstances which in its
opinion exist and which in-its opinion suggest an
intent to defraud or a fraudulent or unlawful
purpose. It is equally unreasonable to think that
the legislature could have abandoned even the
small safeguard of requiring the opinion to be
founded on existent circumstances which suggest
the things for which an investigation can be
ordered and left the opinion and even the existence
of circumstances from which it is to be formed to a
subjective process. This analysis finds support in
Gower's Modern Company Law (2nd edition), page 547,
where the learned author, while dealing with section
165(b) of the English Act observes that “the Board of
Trade will always exercise its discretionary power in the
light of specified grounds for an appointment on their
own motion” and that “they may be trusted not to
appoint unless the circumstances warrant it but they will
test the need on the basis of public and commercial
morality”. There must therefore exist circumstances
which in the opinion of the authority suggest what
has been set out in sub-clause (i), (ii) or (iii). If it
is shown that the circumstances do not exist or
that they are such that it is impossible for any one
to form an opinion therefrom suggestive of the
aforesaid things, the opinion is challengeable on
the ground of non-application of mind or perversity
or on the ground that it was formed on collateral
grounds and was beyond the scope of the statute . ”
(emphasis supplied)
33. The principle in Barium Chemicals Ltd. (supra)
was followed in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of
2
Gujarat , where the Court considered the expressions ‘is of the
opinion’ and ‘necessary’ in the proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of
2
(2008) 4 SCC 144
- 19 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976.
The following observations are relevant:
“ 24. The proviso opens with the words “where the
State Government is of opinion that substantial
modifications in the draft development plan and
regulations are necessary, …”. These words are
indicative of the satisfaction being subjective one
but there must exist circumstances stated in the
proviso which are conditions precedent for the
formation of the opinion. Opinion to be formed by
the State Government cannot be on imaginary
grounds, wishful thinking, however laudable that
may be. Such a course is impermissible in law.
The formation of the opinion, though subjective,
must be based on the material disclosing that a
necessity had arisen to make substantial
modifications in the draft development plan.
25. The formation of the opinion by the State
Government is with reference to the necessity that may
have had arisen to make substantial modifications in
the draft development plan. The expression: “as
considered necessary” is again of crucial
importance. The term “consider” means to think
over; it connotes that there should be active
application of the mind. In other words the term
“consider” postulates consideration of all the
relevant aspects of the matter. A plain reading of
the relevant provision suggests that the State
Government may publish the modifications only
after consideration that such modifications have
become necessary. The word “necessary” means
indispensable, requisite, indispensably requisite,
useful, incidental or conducive, essential,
unavoidable, impossible to be otherwise, not to
be avoided, inevitable. The word “necessary”
must be construed in the connection in which it is
used. (See Advanced Law Lexicon, P. Ramanatha
Aiyar, 3rd Edn., 2005.)”
(emphasis supplied)
- 20 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
34. In Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel (supra), the
Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision in ITO v.
3
Lakhmani Mewal Das , further explained that the material
relied upon must bear a rational connection to the opinion
formed. The relevant passage reads as follows:
“ 33. The court is entitled to examine whether there
has been any material available with the State
Government and the reasons recorded, if any, in the
formation of opinion and whether they have any
rational connection with or relevant bearing on the
formation of the opinion. The court is entitled
particularly, in the event, when the formation of the
opinion is challenged to determine whether the
formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or
whimsical. It is always open to the court to
examine the question whether reasons for
formation of opinion have rational connection or
relevant bearing to the formation of such opinion
and are not extraneous to the purposes of the
statute. ”
(emphasis supplied)
35. We are mindful of the discretion vested in the State
Government in relation to the Notifications dated 04.12.2023
and 26.12.2023. The issue before us is not whether the
discretion ought to have been exercised differently, but
whether the decision-making process leading to the impugned
notifications satisfies the requirements of law.
3
(1976) 3 SCC 757
- 21 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
36. Read in the light of the above decisions, Section 94-
A(2-A) requires the State Government to consider relevant
material and apply its mind before forming an opinion that an
Additional Committee is necessary. Though the opinion is
subjective, it cannot rest on conjecture, imaginary grounds or
wishful thinking.
37. The material considered must also bear a rational
nexus to the opinion formed. The Court is not concerned with
weighing the adequacy or sufficiency of that material; it must,
however, be satisfied that the material is relevant and is not
remote, speculative, vague or extraneous to the statutory
purpose.
38. Against this legal background, we proceed to
examine the facts and record of the present case.
(iv) Challenge to the Notification dated 04.12.2023 and
the Notification dated 26.12.2023:
39. The petitioner’s contention is that the State
Government did not form the opinion required by Section 94-
A(2-A) before issuing the Notification dated 04.12.2023 and,
consequently, failed to satisfy a mandatory statutory condition.
- 22 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
40. On examining the record, particularly the
Notification dated 04.12.2023, we find no indication that the
State Government had considered relevant material or formed
an opinion on the necessity of constituting the Additional
Committee when the notification was issued.
41. The material relied upon by the respondents
includes the affidavit dated 29.07.2026 filed by the
Tahsildar/respondent No.3, setting out the number of
applications in Byndoor and Vandse Hoblis. The affidavit states
that, in Byndoor Hobli, out of 13,253 applications, only 8 had
been granted, 2,692 remained pending and the others had
been rejected for failure to satisfy the prescribed eligibility
criteria. In Vandse Hobli, of 23,722 applications, none had
been granted, 1,889 remained pending and the others had
been rejected. Thus, of the total 36,975 applications, 4,581
were shown as pending in the two Hoblis.
42. Relying on these figures, the learned Single Judge
concluded that the large number of pending applications
demonstrated the necessity for an Additional Committee and
that the notification had therefore been validly issued. With
respect, we are unable to agree with that approach.
- 23 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
43. The figures concerning pendency were placed
before the learned Single Judge for the first time through the
affidavit dated 29.07.2026. Apart from that affidavit, no
convincing material was produced to show that, when the
Notification dated 04.12.2023 was issued, the State
Government had considered relevant material and formed the
requisite opinion. The affidavit can disclose the position of the
applications as on the date it was filed; it cannot establish what
material was considered nearly three years earlier.
44. The State Government’s consideration of relevant
material and its formation of the requisite opinion must be
evident from the notification or from the record available when
it was issued. The decision cannot subsequently be supported
by explanations or material introduced after the event.
45. In this regard, the observations in Mohinder Singh
4
Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner are instructive:
“ 8. The second equally relevant matter is that
when a statutory functionary makes an order
based on certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in
the beginning may, by the time it comes to court
4
(1978) 1 SCC 405
- 24 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
on account of a challenge, get validated by
additional grounds later brought out . We may here
draw attention to the observations of Bose, J.
in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police,
Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR
1952 SC 16] :
“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of
explanations subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind,
or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public
authorities are meant to have public effect and are
intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to
whom they are addressed and must be construed
objectively with reference to the language used in the
order itself.”
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as
they grow older. ”
(emphasis supplied)
46. In view of the above principle, the learned Single
Judge ought not to have relied on the figures contained in the
affidavit dated 29.07.2026 to conclude that the State
Government had formed the requisite opinion when it issued
the Notification dated 04.12.2023.
47. The circumstances surrounding the constitution of
the Additional Committee also require consideration. The
petitioner was appointed Chairman of the Committee under
Section 94-A(1), while respondent No.4 was appointed
Chairman of the Additional Committee. The two had contested
- 25 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
against each other in the 2023 Assembly Election from Byndoor
Constituency, in which the petitioner was elected as MLA. His
appointment as Chairman of the Committee followed by
Notification dated 02.11.2023.
48. The record also contains a letter addressed by
respondent No.4 to the then Minister for Revenue, Government
of Karnataka, requesting constitution of an Additional
Committee on the ground that approximately 33,000
applications were pending in Byndoor Constituency. In the
same letter, respondent No.4 recommended himself as
Chairman and proposed respondent Nos.5 to 7 as the other
members. The then Minister for Revenue endorsed the letter,
indicating that appropriate action would be taken.
49. A further letter dated 24.11.2023 was addressed by
the Minister for Women and Child Development to the then
Minister for Revenue, making a similar request. That letter
likewise recommended respondent No.4 as Chairman and
respondent Nos.5 to 7 as members, and also bears the
Revenue Minister’s endorsement.
50. The Additional Committee ultimately constituted by
the Notification dated 04.12.2023 comprised respondent No.4
- 26 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
as Chairman and respondent Nos.5 to 7 as members, precisely
as proposed in the aforesaid letters.
51. This sequence of events raises a serious question as
to whether the State Government independently applied its
mind before issuing the Notification dated 04.12.2023, or acted
on the requests and recommendations contained in those
letters. The record does not disclose any supporting data or
objective material substantiating the figures stated in them. In
the absence of such support, the letters can only be treated as
the views and requests of their authors.
52. The personal views or requests expressed in those
letters cannot take the place of the relevant material that the
State Government was required to consider under Section 94-
A(2-A) of the Act. The material must have a rational connection
with the need to constitute an Additional Committee for the
purpose of granting land under Section 94-A(4). Vague, remote
or extraneous considerations cannot sustain the exercise of
statutory power.
53. The State Government has not placed before us any
convincing record demonstrating that it independently
- 27 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
considered relevant material and formed the opinion required
by Section 94-A(2-A) before issuing the notification.
54. Viewed in its entirety, the sequence suggests that,
after failing to secure election as MLA from Byndoor
Constituency, respondent No.4 sought to obtain a position of
authority through the constitution of an Additional Committee
by making a request to the then Minister for Revenue. The
Minister’s endorsement was followed by a notification that
adopted the proposed composition. What could not be secured
through the election appears to have been pursued through an
indirect route.
55. The Additional Committee was intended to serve
the statutory purpose of considering applications for grant of
land. Its constitution cannot be founded on a defeated
politician’s personal desire to acquire power or office. Such a
desire is not relevant material for forming an opinion under
Section 94-A(2-A) of the Act. Statutory power must be
exercised to advance the purpose for which it was conferred,
and not to accommodate personal or extraneous interests.
56. For these reasons, we are satisfied that, before
issuing the Notification dated 04.12.2023, the State
- 28 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
Government had not considered relevant material or formed
the opinion required under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Act. The
notification was therefore issued in breach of a mandatory
statutory precondition and is liable to be quashed. Since the
Notification dated 26.12.2023 was consequential upon the
Notification dated 04.12.2023, it too must be quashed.
(ii) Challenge to the Constitutional Validity of Rule
108-EE of the Rules:
57. We next consider the petitioner’s challenge to the
constitutional validity of Rule 108-EE of the Rules. At the
outset, it is necessary to notice the grounds on which a statute
or subordinate legislation may be held invalid. In Anjum
5
Kadari v. Union of India , it has been held:
“48.. . . The Constitution imposes certain limitations on
the legislative powers of Parliament and the State
Legislatures. Article 13(2) provides that the State shall
not make any law that takes away or abridges the
rights conferred by Part III. Statutes enacted by the
State Legislatures must be consistent with the
fundamental rights enumerated under Part III of the
Constitution. Further, Article 246 defines the scope and
limitations of the legislative competence of Parliament
and State Legislatures. A statute can be declared
ultra vires on two grounds alone: (i) it is beyond
the ambit of the legislative competence of the
legislature; or (ii) it violates Part III or any other
provision of the Constitution. ”
(emphasis supplied)
5
(2025) 5 SCC 53
- 29 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
58. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd.
6
v. Union of India also explains the grounds on which
subordinate legislation may be challenged. The relevant
observations are as follows:
“75. A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry
the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a
statute passed by a competent legislature .
Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any
of the grounds on which plenary legislation is
questioned. In addition it may also be questioned
on the ground that it does not conform to the
statute under which it is made. It may further be
questioned on the ground that it is contrary to
some other statute. That is because subordinate
legislation must yield to plenary legislation. It
may also be questioned on the ground that it is
unreasonable, unreasonable not in the sense of
not being reasonable, but in the sense that it is
manifestly arbitrary. ”
(emphasis supplied)
59. Against these principles, we turn to the challenge to
Rule 108-EE. The petitioner points out that Rules 108-E and
108-EE provide for Committees whose composition is similar in
respect of four out of five members. The members specified
under Rule 108-E(1)(b) and (c) are also included under Rule
108-EE(1)(b) and (c). The material difference lies in Rule 108-
E(1)(a) and Rule 108-EE(1)(a).
6
(1985) 1 SCC 641
- 30 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
60. Rule 108-E(1)(a) requires the MLA representing the
major part of the Taluk to be a member of the Committee. Rule
108-EE(1)(a), by contrast, contains no corresponding
requirement for the Additional Committee.
61. We have considered Section 94-A(1) and Section
94-A(2-A) of the Act alongside Rules 108-E and 108-EE. These
provisions show that both Committees are entrusted with the
same function and that their composition is substantially similar
in respect of four of the five members.
62. Under Rule 108-E(1)(a), the MLA must be included
as a member of the Committee and is also relevant to the
choice of its Chairman. Rule 108-EE(1)(a) dispenses with both
safeguards for the Additional Committee. It permits the State
Government to appoint ‘a person’ without prescribing any
qualification or guiding criterion, and provides that the person
so appointed shall be the Chairman.
63. Both Committees are constituted for the same
statutory purpose, namely, the grant of land under Section 94-
A(4) of the Act. Yet Rule 108-EE permits the Additional
Committee to function with a materially different composition
from that of the principal Committee.
- 31 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
64. The Committee is intended to perform a social
welfare function by considering applications for grant of land.
The Legislature has required the MLA of the relevant
constituency to be a member, recognising that an elected
representative is positioned to understand and represent the
interests of the people of that constituency. Rule 108-E also
requires the MLA to be taken into account in the appointment
of the Committee’s Chairman.
65. Rule 108-EE(1)(a), however, permits the State
Government to appoint any ‘person’ as Chairman of the
Additional Committee without setting out qualifications,
standards or guiding principles. The result is that two
Committees performing the same function may have materially
different compositions, while the appointment under Rule 108-
EE is left to wide and unrestricted discretion.
66. Since both Committees discharge the same
statutory functions, the composition of the Additional
Committee ought reasonably to be placed on a comparable
footing with that of the principal Committee. The person
appointed under Rule 108-EE(1)(a) should therefore possess
experience and competence commensurate with that expected
- 32 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
of an MLA, whose membership is mandatory under Rule 108-
E(1)(a).
67. Nevertheless, we are not inclined to strike down
Rule 108-EE as unconstitutional. Instead, we consider it
appropriate to direct the State Government to frame suitable
guidelines for appointments under Rule 108-EE(1)(a). Those
guidelines must prescribe objective criteria, including
administrative ability, relevant experience, integrity and
unimpeachable conduct, so that appointments are made on
relevant considerations and not for extraneous reasons.
68. The guidelines must also ensure that the person
appointed has the competence and standing required to
discharge functions comparable to those entrusted to the
principal Committee. This will help ensure that the discretion
under Rule 108-EE is exercised fairly, transparently and without
arbitrariness.
IX. ORDER:
(i) The appeal is allowed in part ;
(ii) The impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is set aside to the extent indicated hereinbelow:
- 33 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
(1) The Notification dated 04.12.2023, constituting the
Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the consequential
Notification dated 26.12.2023, are hereby quashed;
(2) The petitioners had initially challenged the
constitutional validity of Rule 108-W of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Rules, 1966. However, during the course of the
proceedings, they chose not to press the said challenge and
gave up the corresponding prayer. In view of the same, the
challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 108-W does not
survive for consideration. Accordingly, we refrain from
examining or expressing any opinion on the constitutional
validity of the said Rule and the question is left open.
(3) The State Government to frame appropriate
guidelines governing the appointment of the Chairman of the
Additional Committee under Rule 108-EE(1)(a). Such guidelines
shall prescribe objective criteria, including appropriate legal
knowledge, administrative ability, relevant experience,
integrity, confidentiality and unimpeachable conduct, so as to
ensure that appointments are made on relevant considerations
- 34 -
WA No. 2030 of 2026
and in furtherance of the statutory purpose, without being
influenced by extraneous or personal considerations.
(4) The State Government shall ensure that the
guidelines so framed provide for a fair, transparent and non-
arbitrary process of appointment, having regard to the nature
of the functions entrusted to the Additional Committee and the
responsibility associated with the office of its Chairman.
(5) The State Government shall bear in mind the
observations made in this judgment while framing the aforesaid
guidelines.
No order as to costs.
Pending I.As. stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE
KNM