Karnataka HC Upholds Survey Order For 2,000 Acres After Missing Records Stalled Ramnagar Landowner’s Conversion Request

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Single Judge’s direction to survey the rehabilitation area, record the allotments, and thereafter process the respondent’s conversion-related application disclosed an error of law or perversity warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.

The court held

The appeal was rejected for lack of merit, and the Single Judge’s directions were left undisturbed.

It also directed

The six-month deadline was extended by a further eight weeks from 2 November 2026.

01Facts

The respondent claimed ownership of 4 acres 38 guntas at Ramnagar (Akrali) village and sought to convert the land for non-agricultural use.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–5

The Gram Panchayat’s PDO required a survey map for issuing a no-objection certificate (NOC).

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–5

The respondent could not obtain the survey documents from the Revenue Department; the State’s explanation was that the rehabilitation lands in three villages had not been surveyed and corresponding revenue records were unavailable.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 3–5

In W.P. No. 100411/2025, the Single Judge directed the State to survey the area, survey each allottee’s or grantee’s land, enter the details in the relevant records, and then process the respondent’s application, completing the exercise within six months.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 7

The State appealed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

p. 2

On appeal, the Government Advocate submitted that a survey had been undertaken pursuant to the Single Judge’s directions.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Single Judge’s direction to survey the rehabilitation area, record the allotments, and thereafter process the respondent’s conversion-related application disclosed an error of law or perversity warranting interference in an intra-court appeal.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 7–8

ii.2. Whether the six-month period fixed by the Single Judge should be extended in view of the scale of the survey required.

p. 7 · ¶ 9

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

p. 2

The judgment applies the principle that an intra-court appellate bench does not interfere with a Single Judge’s order in every case; interference requires a demonstrated legal error or perversity.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was referenced in the Single Judge’s directions as the provision under which the respondent’s land-conversion application was to be considered after the necessary survey and records were completed.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

The appellate judgment cites no precedent and does not elaborate on the substantive requirements of Section 95.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court found no apparent legal error or perversity in directing a survey and the creation of relevant records, given the State’s position that the rehabilitation lands had not been surveyed and that records were unavailable.

pp. 5–6 · ¶ 5–7

The Government Advocate’s submission that a survey had already been undertaken further supported the decision not to disturb the Single Judge’s order.

p. 6 · ¶ 6

However, the Court noted that the exercise involved a survey of approximately 2,000 acres and considered additional time appropriate.

p. 7 · ¶ 9