Section 38A cannot deprive recorded private landowners of property without due process.

The Deputy Commissioner issued a notification under Section 38-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, declaring land in Survey No. 144/2, measuring 1 acre 35 guntas, to be an “unrecorded habitation.”

Respondents 1–4 claimed ownership of the land, relying on revenue records recording their father as its holder, and challenged the notification and a consequential order of the Assistant Commissioner.

Respondent No. 1 had filed objections, but the Single Judge found that the consequential order did not address them and quashed both orders, remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration.

The State appealed, contending that the statutory process under Section 38-A and the Rules had been followed.

Whether the authorities could proceed under Section 38-A in respect of land recorded in the name of a private owner without properly considering that owner’s objections

Whether the Single Judge erred in quashing the notification and consequential order and remitting the matter for reconsideration

Section 38-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, provides a statutory mechanism concerning dwelling houses in specified unrecorded habitations, including the vesting of land and registration of eligible agricultural labourers as owners, subject to the procedure prescribed by the Act.

Where revenue records identify a private owner, the authority must issue notice to the recorded owner and consider any objections before taking adverse action; an order must disclose that the objections were considered and give reasons.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Mohammedhanif Pattesab Nadaf v. State of Karnataka and noted the similar treatment of the issue in Parasappa Chatrappa Gollara v. State of Karnataka.

Section 38-A cannot be used to deprive a private landowner of property without due process.

The revenue records reflected the name of the respondents’ father, and respondent No. 1 had submitted objections.

The Court found that the consequential order dated 10 October 2025 was silent on those objections and was non-speaking and unreasoned.

The State’s contention that notices, an inspection and an enquiry had taken place did not cure the failure of the order to demonstrate that the objections had been considered.

Applying the principles of natural justice and the coordinate Bench authorities, the Court held that the Single Judge correctly quashed the impugned actions and directed fresh consideration.

The matter remained remitted for fresh consideration, with the Deputy Commissioner directed to consider respondent No. 1’s objections at the earliest.