01Facts
The petitioners had occupied and cultivated Government land in Sy. Nos. 143, 168/1 and 147 of Ganihar Village, Sindagi Taluk.
¶ 3–4 · pp. 4–5The Regularization Committee approved their applications on 1 April 2017 without imposing conditions. When issuing Saguvali Chits on 24 January 2018, the Tahsildar imposed conditions describing the grants as temporary and prohibiting changes to the revenue records.
¶ 3–4 · pp. 4–5The petitioners challenged those conditions and sought consideration of their representation dated 7 April 2026 for entry of their names in the revenue records
¶ 3–4 · pp. 4–502Issues
i.1. Whether the Tahsildar, when issuing Saguvali Chits following the Committee’s grant, could impose conditions that the grants were temporary and that the revenue records should not be changed
¶ 4 · pp. 5–6ii.2. Whether the Tahsildar should consider the petitioners’ representation and enter their names in the revenue records, subject to any legal impediment
p. 3 · pp. 6–703Law Applied
Section 94A(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1976, and Rule 108-D(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, require the competent authority to issue the formal grant order or Saguvali Chit following the Committee’s decision.
¶ 4 · pp. 5–6Rule 108-J of the Rules does not provide for the impugned conditions. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, acting as Member Secretary, could not add conditions absent from the Committee’s grant and unsupported by the applicable Rules
¶ 4 · pp. 5–6Provisions in the judgment · 1
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Section 94A
04Reasoning
The Committee’s order granting the land was undisputedly unconditional. The Tahsildar’s role was to issue the formal grant documents in accordance with the governing Act and Rules, not to modify the Committee’s decision by imposing conditions that had no basis in Rule 108-J.
¶ 4 · pp. 5–7The Court therefore held that the conditions making the grants temporary and barring changes to the revenue records exceeded the Tahsildar’s authority. It directed consideration of the petitioners’ representation and mutation of their names only if no other legal impediment existed
¶ 4 · pp. 5–705Holding
The petition was allowed. The Court quashed the conditions describing the grants as temporary and prohibiting changes to the revenue records, and directed the Tahsildar to issue fresh Saguvali Chits without those conditions.
pp. 6–7The Tahsildar was also directed to consider the petitioners’ representation and enter their names in the revenue records, if no other legal impediment existed, within two months of receiving the order. No order as to costs
pp. 6–7Original Court PDF
YALLABAIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
