Court directs State Government to frame objective guidelines for appointment of Additional Committee Chairman, emphasizing public interest over political rehabilitation
In a significant judgment dated November 2, 2026, the Karnataka High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan) partially allowed an intra-court appeal challenging the constitution of an Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Court quashed the State Government's notification dated December 4, 2023, which constituted the Additional Committee, and the consequential notification dated December 26, 2023, demarcating the jurisdiction between the original and Additional Committees.
The appeal was filed by Gururaj Gantihole, the elected MLA from Byndoor Constituency and Chairman of the original Land Grant Committee constituted under Section 94-A(1). The petitioner challenged the constitution of the Additional Committee on two key grounds:
1. The State Government failed to form a valid opinion based on relevant material before constituting the Additional Committee as mandated under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Act.
2. Rule 108-EE of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which governs the appointment of the Additional Committee's Chairman, was challenged as unconstitutional for granting unfettered discretion to appoint "any person" without prescribed qualifications or objective criteria.
The Court held that the formation of an opinion by the State Government regarding the necessity of constituting the Additional Committee is a mandatory condition precedent that must be supported by relevant, rational material. The Court found no evidence that such opinion was formed when the notification was issued on December 4, 2023. Instead, the only material relied upon was an affidavit filed nearly three years later by the Tahsildar, reflecting pendency of applications at a later date, which could not cure the initial defect. The Court stressed the principle that the validity of a statutory notification must be judged based on the material and reasons existing at the time of issuance and cannot be supplemented by subsequent affidavits or explanations.
Further, the Court expressed serious concerns about the political motivation behind the constitution of the Additional Committee. The defeated political rival of the petitioner, respondent No.4, was appointed Chairman of the Additional Committee. Letters from this respondent and government ministers recommending the constitution of the Additional Committee and naming proposed members were adopted verbatim in the notification. The Court observed this sequence raised a strong inference of lack of independent application of mind and an attempt to use public office for political rehabilitation rather than genuine administrative necessity.
Regarding the constitutional challenge to Rule 108-EE, the Court noted that while the Rule permits appointment of any "person" as Chairman without setting qualifications or guiding principles, striking down the Rule altogether was not warranted. Instead, the Court directed the State Government to frame objective guidelines prescribing criteria such as legal knowledge, administrative ability, relevant experience, integrity, confidentiality, and unimpeachable conduct to ensure fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary appointments.
The Court accordingly set aside the Single Judge's dismissal order in part, quashing the notifications constituting the Additional Committee and transferring pending applications, and remanded the matter to the State Government to formulate appropriate appointment guidelines. The Court underlined the fundamental principle that public office must be exercised to serve public interest and cannot be reduced to a vehicle for personal political ambitions or a "consolation prize" for defeated politicians.
This judgment reinforces the essential requirement of reasoned administrative decision-making based on relevant material, the limits on executive discretion under land grant laws, and safeguards against politicization of public statutory bodies. The State Government's compliance with the Court's directive on framing objective appointment guidelines will be critical in restoring public confidence in land regularization committees under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Bottom Line:
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Constitution of Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) requires prior formation of opinion by State Government on relevant material - Such mandatory statutory precondition cannot be supported later by affidavit - Notification constituting Additional Committee and consequential jurisdiction notification quashed - Rule 108-EE not struck down, but State directed to frame objective guidelines for appointment of Chairman of Additional Committee.
Statutory provision(s):
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Section 94-A(2-A), Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 Rule 108-EE, Constitution of India Article 14
Gururaj Gantihole v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3008777
