Land cannot be classified as B-Kharab absent prior public purpose reservation or historical public usage.

The dispute concerns land in Survey No. 20 of Chinnappanahalli Village.

The first respondent’s (petitioner below) grandfather was granted occupancy rights in 1966 under the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, for an area of 15 acres 19 guntas (comprising 4 acres 39 guntas cultivable land and 10 acres 20 guntas kharab land).

Although the grant was initially questioned in 2008 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, subsequent litigation and a remand by the Division Bench resulted in the Special Deputy Commissioner confirming the grant as genuine in 2016 and 2021.

Following a direction in a Public Interest Litigation (W.P. No. 8649/2022) to consider a representation for a village burial ground, the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) issued a notice on 30.08.2022 to earmark 3 acres 27 guntas of the land as "B-Kharab" for a graveyard.

The respondent challenged this notice, and the learned Single Judge set it aside, directing the State to re-classify the land as "A-Kharab".

The State appealed this judgment.

1. Whether the authorities could validly classify the subject land as "B-Kharab" for a burial ground without first conducting a survey to determine the total extent of Survey No. 20?

2. Whether the land in question satisfies the statutory criteria for "B-Kharab" classification under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966?

The court primarily applied Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which governs the classification of "Pot Kharab" land.

Under Rule 21(2)(a), "A-Kharab" is defined as land unfit for agriculture at the time of survey, such as farm buildings or threshing floors, which remains part of the holder's land.

Rule 21(2)(b) defines "B-Kharab" as land excluded from assessment because it is reserved for public purposes, including roads, footpaths, tanks, streams, or existing burial/cremation grounds.

The Court observed that the respondent holds a valid occupancy certificate for 15 acres 19 guntas within Survey No. 20.

It noted that the State had not determined the total extent of Survey No. 20 through a formal survey involving notice to affected parties before attempting to earmark 3 acres 27 guntas as B-Kharab.

The Court reasoned that for land to be classified as "B-Kharab" under Rule 21(2)(b), it must be established that the land is currently being used for a public purpose, such as an existing burial ground, road, or water body.

In this case, none of the conditions specified in Rule 21(2)(b) existed; the land was not already a burial ground, nor did it contain public infrastructure or water bodies.

The State could not unilaterally re-classify the land as B-Kharab simply to reserve it for a future public purpose when the land was not currently being used as such and was tied to a confirmed private grant.

The Court affirmed that the authorities cannot declare land as B-Kharab for a burial ground if it is not already used for such purposes or other public uses defined by law.

The Writ Appeal was disposed of, maintaining the quashing of the impugned notice.