Karnataka High Court allows BJP MLA’s plea to disband additional land committee headed by Congress leader

Public office cannot be treated as a consolation prize for a defeated politician, said the Karnataka High Court recently while quashing a notification that set up an additional land regularisation committee in Byndoor headed by a Congress leader who had lost the 2023 Assembly election [Gururaj Gantihole v State of Karnataka].

A Division Bench of Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan found that the State had constituted the committee, with Congress leader K Gopal Poojary as its Chairman, without recording any opinion on the need for such an additional committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The Court observed that the committee appeared to have been constituted on the strength of requests by Poojary, made after his Assembly poll defeat. The notification constituting the additional committee had also adopted the team he had proposed, it noted.

Criticising this approach of allowing defeated politicians to acquire power through a backdoor route, the Court said,

"A personal request, political influence or the desire to rehabilitate a leader who has lost political ground cannot, by itself, furnish a justification for creating an additional position or arrangement. The circumstances suggest an attempt to secure a position of authority through an indirect route and to regain power through a back-door route, rather than to address any genuine public necessity."

The Court underscored that an additional public position cannot be created merely to facilitate the "political rehabilitation" of someone who lost an election or restore their lost influence.

It warned that the State must remain about considerations of personal political advancement and ensure that its decisions are guided by public interest and genuine administrative necessity, not attempts to accommodate an individual’s desire to regain lost authority.

"The desire of an individual to cling on to power cannot be permitted to dictate the course of public administration. Power is entrusted to public authorities to serve the people, not to provide a refuge for those who have lost their political standing. Public office cannot be treated as a consolation prize for a defeated politician, nor can it be converted into a reward for political loyalty," the Court added.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Gururaj Gantihole, who had won the 2023 Assembly elections from Byndoor and was subsequently appointed the Chairman of the principal land regularisation committee formed under Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

However, the State thereafter issued a notification constituting an additional land committee under Section 94A(2A) of the Act and instituted K Gopal Poojary as its chairman. Land regularisation applications were split between the two committees.

Gantihole challenged this move before the High Court, arguing that there was no reason to set up such an additional committee headed by a defeated political candidate as its chairman. Gantihole argued that this move was aimed only at undermining his role as the principal land regularisation committee's chairman.

Poojary countered that losing an election did not make him ineligible for being appointed as the chairman of the additional committee.

The State defended its decision by stating that it was a matter of subjective satisfaction and that there was a need for the additional committee to help in the prompt disposal of a large number of land regularisation applications.

A single judge Bench of the High Court agreed with the State's position and refused to quash the additional committee's constitution. Gantihole challenged this ruling before the High Court's Division Bench.

On November 2, the Division Bench found lapses in the manner in which the additional committee was set up. It noted that the large pendency of land regularisation applications was not mentioned when the additional committee was created in 2023. Rather, this reasoning was only found in an affidavit filed three years later, after Gantihole filed a petition challenging the commitee's constitution.

The Court ruled that an affidavit prepared in 2026 cannot fill a gap in the reasons laid out for setting up a committee three years earlier.

"Apart from that affidavit, no convincing material was produced to show that, when the Notification dated 04.12.2023 was issued, the State Government had considered relevant material and formed the requisite opinion. The affidavit can disclose the position of the applications as on the date it was filed; it cannot establish what material was considered nearly three years earlier.", the Court said.

The Court, therefore, quashed the notification that set up an additional land committee headed by Poojary. It also quashed a consequential notification that split land regularisation applications between the two committees.

Notably, the Court further observed that there were no guidelines on how the chairman of an additional committee set up under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is to be appointed.

The Court, therefore, directed the State to frame guidelines on this aspect.

"Those guidelines must prescribe objective criteria, including administrative ability, relevant experience, integrity and unimpeachable conduct, so that appointments are made on relevant considerations and not for extraneous reasons... This will help ensure that the discretion under Rule 108-EE is exercised fairly, transparently and without arbitrariness," the Court said.

Senior Advocate Aruna M Shyam appeared along with advocate Shivani Shetty for Gantihole.

Additional Advocate General I Tharanath Poojary and Additional Government Advocate SH Raghavendra appeared for the State, the District Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner Office, and Tahsildar.

Advocate PD Surana appeared for Poojary.

[Read Order]