Karnataka HC Quashes Land-Regularisation Committee Led By MLA’s Defeated Rival For Lack Of Recorded State Assessment Of Need, Orders Appointment Guidelines

The appellant, elected MLA for Byndoor Constituency in 2023, was appointed Chairman of the Section 94-A(1) Committee by notification dated 2 November 2023.

On 4 December 2023, the State constituted an Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, appointing respondent No. 4—who had contested and lost against the appellant—as its Chairman.

A further notification dated 26 December 2023 allocated jurisdictions and pending applications between the Committees; the Additional Committee was assigned the larger number.

The appellant challenged both notifications and Rule 108-EE of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

The Single Judge dismissed the petition, relying on a Tahsildar’s affidavit filed in 2026 to find that application pendency justified the Additional Committee.

The appellant appealed.

Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 makes the State Government’s formation of an opinion that an Additional Committee is necessary for granting land under Section 94-A(4) a condition precedent to exercising the power to constitute one.

Although formation of the opinion is subjective, it must rest on existing, relevant material with a rational connection to the statutory purpose; the court may examine whether the opinion is arbitrary, perverse, or based on extraneous considerations (Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, and ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das).

An administrative order must be judged by the reasons and material supporting it when made; it cannot be validated by later explanations or evidence (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner).

Subordinate legislation may be challenged for inconsistency with its parent statute, constitutional invalidity, or manifest arbitrariness (Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India); legislation may also be invalidated for lack of legislative competence or violation of the Constitution (Anjum Kadari v. Union of India).

The Court held that the 2026 affidavit, which gave figures for pending applications, could not prove what material the State Government considered when it issued the 2023 notification; the record contained no contemporaneous evidence of the required application of mind.

The Court also considered letters requesting an Additional Committee that recommended respondent No. 4 and other proposed members, followed by a notification adopting that composition.

In the absence of supporting data or other objective material, those requests did not establish the statutory necessity for the Committee and raised concern that the power had been exercised for an extraneous purpose.

As to Rule 108-EE, the Court considered the absence of prescribed qualifications or criteria for appointing its Chairman, but declined to strike the Rule down; it instead directed the State to frame objective appointment guidelines.

The Court quashed the 4 December 2023 notification constituting the Additional Committee and the consequential 26 December 2023 notification.

It did not strike down Rule 108-EE and directed the State Government to frame guidelines for appointing the Additional Committee’s Chairman, prescribing objective criteria and a fair, transparent, non-arbitrary process.

The operative order’s clause (2) refers to a challenge to Rule 108-W having been abandoned, whereas the judgment’s analysis concerns the challenge to Rule 108-EE.

No order as to costs; pending applications were disposed of.