{"id":240319,"date":"2020-12-08T12:00:23","date_gmt":"2020-12-08T06:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=240319"},"modified":"2020-12-08T11:36:22","modified_gmt":"2020-12-08T06:06:22","slug":"kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/","title":{"rendered":"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Karnataka High Court: <\/strong>Sachin Shankar Magadum J., disposed off the petition granting compensation to the petitioners as the defaulting land fell under the provisions of Rule 21(2) (a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The facts of the case are such that the respondents issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereby acquired the lands of the petitioner for the purposes of submergence in the backwater of Upper Krishna Project without compensating for the \u2018phot- kharab\u2019 area as it was not notified.\u00a0 Aggrieved by the same, instant petition was filed seeking writ of mandamus against the respondents to pass a supplementary award along with statutory benefits in respect of \u2018phot- kharab\u2019 area being part of land.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Counsel for the petitioners submitted that after relying on the Aakar Bandh, it was evident that survey was carried out in the year 1965-66 and the \u2018phot kharab\u2019 area is classified as \u2018A\u2019 kharab and hence would squarely fall under the provisions of Rule 21(2) (a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996. It was also submitted that other landowners has also been compensated for the same \u2018phot kharab\u2019 area and hence the petitioners are also liable to be compensated for the same.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have waived off their right to claim on the \u2018phot- kharab\u2019 area as it was not the subject matter of the consent award and herein the same consent award is being challenged and hence issue of compensation cannot be re-agitated and compensation thereby cannot be granted.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court relied on the judgment <em>Sadashivaiah v. State of Karnataka<\/em>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/j2N24ELl\">2003 SCC OnLine Kar 539<\/a> wherein it was held that<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u201c31. The words phut Kharab, therefore, mean and have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for cultivation. After coming into the force of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 the word phut Kharab has been defined under Rule 21(2) as under:\u2014<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u201cduring the process of classification, land included as unarable shall be treated as \u201cPot Kharab\u201d. Pot Kharab land may be classified as follows.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>(a) That which is classified as unfit for agriculture at the time of survey including the farm buildings or threshing flours of the holder;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong><em>\u00a0(b) That which is not assessed because, (i) it is reserved or assigned for public purpose; (ii) it is occupied by a road or recognised footpath or by a tank or stream used by persons other than the holders for irrigation, drinking or domestic purposes; (iii) used as burial ground or cremation ground; (iv) assigned for villager potteries.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<ol style=\"text-align: justify;\" start=\"32\">\n<li><strong><em>Therefore, it becomes clear if the land falls within the category of 21(2)(a) it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land. However, when the petitioners claim that the said land falls within 21(2)(a) and therefore they are entitled to the compensation LAO proceeds on the assumption that it falls within Section 22(1)(b) and therefore they are not entitled to compensation as it belongs to the government and accordingly he has declined to pass any award. It is not in dispute that before arriving at such a conclusion the LAO has not given an opportunity to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act to substantiate their contention. Without any such enquiry, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners he proceeds on the assumption that the said Kharab land falls within 22(1)(b) and therefore petitioners have no claim, as such he has declined to pass the award. On that ground also, the impugned orders passed by the LAO cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Court thus observed that if the land falls within the category of Rule 21(2) (a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996, the said \u2018phot kharab\u2019 area is not a government ladn and the same would confirm the ownership on the land owners to which this \u2018phot kharab\u2019 area is attached and the same would be classified as phot kharab \u2018A\u2019 land.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In view of the above, writ petition was disposed off.[Sadappa v. General Manager, WP No. 201108 of 2018, decided on 22-01-2020]<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #008000;\">Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant ahs put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Karnataka High Court: Sachin Shankar Magadum J., disposed off the petition granting compensation to the petitioners as the defaulting land fell under <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2728,28334,44368,43578,29785],"class_list":["post-240319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-compensation","tag-karnataka-high-court","tag-land-revenue-rules","tag-landowner","tag-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court: Sachin Shankar Magadum J., disposed off the petition granting compensation to the petitioners as the defaulting land fell under\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-12-08T06:30:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/\",\"name\":\"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-08T06:30:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted","og_description":"Karnataka High Court: Sachin Shankar Magadum J., disposed off the petition granting compensation to the petitioners as the defaulting land fell under","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-12-08T06:30:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/","name":"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-12-08T06:30:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/08\/kar-hc-land-falling-within-the-category-of-212-a-karnataka-land-revenue-rules-1996-is-not-a-government-land-but-has-private-ownership-compensation-granted\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kar HC | Land falling within the category of 21(2) (a) Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1996 is not a government land but has private ownership; Compensation Granted"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":372785,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/15\/beneficiary-party-presence-in-land-acquisition-matters-indispensable-karnataka-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":240319,"position":0},"title":"Beneficiary party&#8217;s presence indispensable for effective determination of compensation in land acquisition matters: Karnataka High Court remits back matter to Reference Court","author":"Shriya Singh","date":"January 15, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Effective representation by the beneficiary company cannot be substituted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or any other State Authorities inasmuch as the very constitution of the said company is to ensure proper and effective implementation of the project.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Beneficiary party presence in land acquisition matters","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Beneficiary-party-presence-in-land-acquisition-matters.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Beneficiary-party-presence-in-land-acquisition-matters.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Beneficiary-party-presence-in-land-acquisition-matters.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Beneficiary-party-presence-in-land-acquisition-matters.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207319,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/12\/28\/reference-court-under-land-acquisition-act-1894-is-duty-bound-to-hear-beneficiary-of-acquisition-in-proceedings-seeking-enhancement-of-compensation-payable-to-land-owner\/","url_meta":{"origin":240319,"position":1},"title":"Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is duty bound to hear beneficiary of acquisition","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 28, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Krishna S. Dixit, J. while hearing a civil writ petition, quashed Reference Court\u2019s order under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enhancing compensation payable to land owners without affording a hearing to the beneficiary of acquisition. Petitioner, a beneficiary of land acquisition, challenged\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":195682,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/30\/petition-seeking-compensation-dismissed-in-light-of-illegal-occupation-of-land\/","url_meta":{"origin":240319,"position":2},"title":"Petition seeking compensation dismissed in light of illegal occupation of land","author":"Saba","date":"April 30, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Jammu And Kashmir: While deciding upon the present writ petition wherein the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be asked to not cause any sort of interference into their land and should be desisted on that ground, the Single Bench of M.K Hanjura, J. dismissed the petition\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":354404,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/24\/karnataka-hc-century-club-is-public-authority-under-rti-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":240319,"position":3},"title":"Century Club a public authority under RTI Act; Karnataka HC rules land grant by Maharaja of Mysore as substantial state funding","author":"Editor","date":"July 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWithout this land, the very existence of the Club would fall into doubt inasmuch as no activities of the Club could be carried out without this land being available to it.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Century Club is public authority","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Century-Club-is-public-authority.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Century-Club-is-public-authority.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Century-Club-is-public-authority.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Century-Club-is-public-authority.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":367932,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/27\/jagadish-v-state-of-karnataka-ptcl-act-granted-land-analysis-2025\/","url_meta":{"origin":240319,"position":4},"title":"Granted Land under PTCL Act: An Analysis of Jagadish v. State of Karnataka","author":"Editor","date":"November 27, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Pavithra Thammaiah*, Amruthavarshini** and Esha Sanjyot Shah***","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Experts Corner&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"PTCL Act Granted Land Interpretation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/PTCL-Act-Granted-Land-Interpretation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/PTCL-Act-Granted-Land-Interpretation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/PTCL-Act-Granted-Land-Interpretation.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/PTCL-Act-Granted-Land-Interpretation.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290186,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/20\/karnataka-high-court-reprimands-s-tate-authorities-delayed-reconstruction-village-school-demolished-widen-mysore-highway-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":240319,"position":5},"title":"Karnataka High Court slams the State authorities for delaying the reconstruction of a village school demolished to widen the Mysore Highway","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Coming down furiously over the respondents Karnataka High Court reprimanded them for indulging in red-tapism and being apathetic to the educational needs of the children.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-586.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=240319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}