Section 38A notifications over recorded private land require prior verification and notice to owners.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy. No. 99/2, Hegdiyal Village, supported by revenue records showing his ancestors’ names and, later, his own name

The Deputy Commissioner issued a notification under Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, declaring the Basava Nagar area an “unrecorded habitation”; the notification included the petitioner’s land.

A subsequent mutation entry, M.R. No. T160, was made

The petitioner challenged the notification and mutation, alleging that the authorities had not followed the required procedure or given him an opportunity to object

The State maintained that the Deputy Commissioner had acted on the Tahasildar’s report

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner could include the petitioner’s privately owned land in a Section 38A notification declaring an “unrecorded habitation” without verifying the revenue records and following the procedural safeguards identified in Smt. Sonavva

2. Whether the notification and consequential mutation should be set aside and the petitioner’s name restored in the revenue records

Section 38A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, was the statutory basis invoked for declaring an “unrecorded habitation”

Relying on Smt. Sonavva v. State of Karnataka & Others, W.P. No. 107338/2024, decided on 23 January 2025, the Court stated that the Deputy Commissioner should examine relevant revenue records before issuing a notification; where those records identify interested persons, notices should be issued to them, and where no relevant entries exist, that absence should be recorded in the notification

The Court also invoked Article 300A of the Constitution, observing that deprivation of the owner’s ability to use and enjoy land without acquisition raises a property-right concern

The revenue records produced by the petitioner showed his family’s and his own recorded interest in the land, while the impugned notification included that land within the declared habitation

Applying the procedural guidance in Smt. Sonavva, the Court concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had issued the notification without following the required consideration of the records and associated procedure

Given the petitioner’s recorded ownership and the potential effect on his use and enjoyment of the land, the Court held that the notification could not stand insofar as it concerned Sy. No. 99/2

It directed respondent No. 3 to delete the Government’s name in respect of that land and restore the petitioner’s name in the relevant RTCs.

No order was made as to costs