Natural Justice Mandates Hearing Before Mutation | Circulars Cannot Override Karnataka Land Revenue Act : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that procedural fairness under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is non-negotiable, even when acting on government circulars. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside mutation entries made unilaterally by revenue authorities at the behest of the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs, holding that such actions violate principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. The judgment underscores that administrative convenience cannot override legal safeguards in land record mutations.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, nine individuals from Marsanahalli village, Indi taluk, Vijayapura district, challenged the mutation of their land records under Survey No. 16/A/1 (old), 16// (new), measuring 12 acres 18 guntas. The 5th Respondent (Tahsildar, Indi) had entered the name of the 6th Respondent (Karnataka State Board of Wakfs) in Column No. 11 of the Record of Rights (RTC) for the year 2024-25, without issuing notice to the petitioners or following the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Key Facts

• The disputed land (Sy. No. 16/A/1) is situated in Marsanahalli village, Indi taluk, Vijayapura district.
• The mutation extract (ME No. T-45 dated 06.01.2023) was passed unilaterally by the Tahsildar, inserting the Wakf Board’s name in the RTC.
• The petitioners’ names were already recorded in Column Nos. 9 and 12 of the RTC, but the Wakf Board’s entry in Column No. 11 was made without their knowledge or consent.
• The Wakf Board relied on a government circular dated 04.01.2010 and a notification issued in 1974, claiming ownership over lands notified as Wakf properties.

Procedural History

• 06.01.2023: Impugned mutation extract (ME No. T-45) passed by the Tahsildar.
• 2026: Writ Petition (WP No. 201369 of 2026) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking:
  • Quashing of the impugned mutation extract (Annexure-D).
  • Deletion of the Wakf Board’s name from Column No. 11 of the RTC (Annexure-E).
• 03.06.2026: The High Court disposed of the petition, relying on two earlier judgments:
  • Chand Sab vs. State of Karnataka & others (W.P. No. 202965/2022 dated 06.01.2023).
  • M. Ravindra Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & others (W.P. No. 200340/2021 dated 23.02.2021).

The Parties' Positions

• Petitioners: Argued that the mutation was illegal as it was done without notice or opportunity of hearing, violating Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.
• Respondents (State and Wakf Board):
  • The State contended that the Tahsildar acted on an office note issued by the Regional Commissioner, which in turn relied on the 1974 notification and Rules 6 and 7 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
  • The Wakf Board claimed that the land was notified as Wakf property in 1974, and the mutation was done in accordance with the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

1. Quashing of the impugned mutation extract (ME No. T-45 dated 06.01.2023).
2. Deletion of the Wakf Board’s name from Column No. 11 of the RTC.
3. Remand of the matter to the revenue authorities for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether mutation entries in revenue records can be made unilaterally by revenue authorities based on government circulars or notifications, without adhering to the procedural safeguards under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and principles of natural justice.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• The mutation was effected without notice to the petitioners, violating Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.
• The circular dated 04.01.2010 relied upon by the respondents cannot override statutory provisions.
• The Wakf Board’s claim of ownership based on the 1974 notification does not absolve the authorities of their duty to follow due process.

For the Respondents

• The State argued that the Tahsildar acted in compliance with an office note issued by the Regional Commissioner, which was based on the 1974 notification and Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.
• The Wakf Board contended that the land was notified as Wakf property in 1974, and the mutation was done in accordance with Rules 6 and 7 of the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.

The Court's Analysis

The Court relied on its earlier judgments in Chand Sab and M. Ravindra Reddy, which dealt with identical circumstances, to hold that:

1. Circulars Cannot Override Statutory Provisions: The Court emphasized that government circulars or notifications cannot supersede the procedural requirements under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Any mutation or change in revenue records must follow the statutory procedure, including issuance of notice and adherence to principles of natural justice.

   "It is needless to say that the Circular cannot override the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. For effecting changes in the RTC, the procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is to be followed. The said procedure is not followed. Notice is not issued to the petitioner before making changes in the RTC. The impugned entries are made behind the back of the petitioner."

2. Violation of Natural Justice: The Court held that the unilateral insertion of the Wakf Board’s name in the RTC, without notifying the petitioners, was a gross violation of natural justice. The petitioners were denied an opportunity to contest the mutation, rendering the action illegal and arbitrary.

3. Remedy for the Wakf Board: The Court clarified that while the impugned mutation was set aside, the Wakf Board was not precluded from pursuing its claim. It could initiate fresh proceedings under the applicable law, provided it followed the due process and issued notice to the petitioners.

   "Liberty is reserved to respondent No.6-Wakf Board to follow the applicable law and due procedure of law if at all it has any right, title, or interest in the said property for inserting of the name in the Records of Rights."

4. Highhandedness of Revenue Authorities: The Court criticized the Tahsildar’s blind compliance with the Wakf Board’s request, terming it highhanded and contrary to law. The Tahsildar failed to follow the mandatory procedure under the Land Revenue Act, including Section 136 and Rules 128 and 129.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following orders:

1. The impugned mutation extract (ME No. T-45 dated 06.01.2023) was quashed.
2. The entry of the Wakf Board’s name in Column No. 11 of the RTC was set aside.
3. The matter was remitted back to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 (Regional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Tahsildar) for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
4. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were directed to:
   • Delete the Wakf Board’s name from Column No. 11 of the RTC within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
   • Notify the petitioners and the Wakf Board and reconsider the matter afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties.
   • Conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
5. The High Court Government Pleader was directed to communicate the order to the Regional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Tahsildar to prevent similar violations in the future.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable

• Revenue authorities must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Land Revenue Rules while effecting mutations. Circulars or notifications cannot bypass these statutory safeguards.
• Notice and hearing are mandatory before making any changes in revenue records. Unilateral actions, even if based on government directives, are illegal and liable to be set aside.

The Limits of Administrative Directions

• Government circulars cannot override statutory provisions. Courts will strike down any administrative action that violates natural justice or statutory procedure, regardless of the authority issuing the directive.
• Wakf Boards or other statutory bodies cannot claim automatic mutation of land records based on notifications. They must initiate fresh proceedings under the applicable law and follow due process.

Remedies for Affected Parties

• Landowners whose names are unilaterally removed or altered in revenue records can challenge such mutations through writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
• Revenue authorities must restore the original entries in the RTC if the mutation is found to be illegal, as was done in this case.
• Liberty to re-agitate: Even if a mutation is set aside, the Wakf Board or other claimants retain the right to initiate fresh proceedings under the applicable law, provided they follow the due process of issuing notice and hearing the affected parties.