The Karnataka High Court has quashed the constitution of an Additional Land Regularisation Committee in Byndoor, observing that public positions cannot be created to restore the political influence of a leader who has lost an election. The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that the State Government had failed to demonstrate that it considered relevant material before constituting the committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by MLA Gururaj Gantihole against the dismissal of his earlier petition challenging the constitution of the Additional Committee headed by K. Gopal Poojary.
Background
Gantihole was elected from the Byndoor Assembly constituency in the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections and subsequently appointed Chairman of the original committee responsible for considering applications for regularisation of unauthorised occupation of government land.
However, on December 4, 2023, the State Government constituted an Additional Committee and appointed Gopal Poojary, who had contested against Gantihole and lost the election, as its Chairman.
Gantihole challenged the notification, arguing that the government had not established any genuine administrative necessity for creating another committee. He also questioned the allocation of pending applications between the two committees.
The Single Judge dismissed his petition on August 4, 2026, relying on an affidavit submitted by the Tahsildar in July 2026. Gantihole subsequently approached the Division Bench.
The Division Bench found that Section 94-A(2-A) requires the State Government to form an opinion, based on relevant material, that an Additional Committee is necessary before exercising its power.
The Court observed that the government had not produced any convincing material demonstrating such consideration when the December 4, 2023 notification was issued. It also held that an affidavit submitted nearly three years later could not retrospectively justify the decision.
The Bench observed:
"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 Court also examined letters written by Gopal Poojary and another minister recommending the constitution of the committee. It noted that the committee's final composition followed the recommendations made in those communications.
Emphasising the importance of public administration, the Bench further stated:
"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 also examined Rule 108-EE of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which governs the composition of Additional Committees. It observed that the provision did not prescribe qualifications or guiding criteria for appointing the Chairman.
However, instead of striking down the Rule, the Court directed the State Government to frame objective appointment guidelines covering administrative ability, relevant experience, integrity and unimpeachable conduct.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Karnataka High Court quashed the December 4, 2023 notification constituting the Additional Committee and the consequential notification dated December 26, 2023, allocating pending applications between the two committees.
The Bench directed the State Government to frame appropriate guidelines ensuring a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary process for appointing Chairmen of Additional Committees under Rule 108-EE(1)(a).
Case Details
Case Title: Gururaj Gantihole v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 2030 of 2026 (KLR-RES)
Judges: Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan
Decision Date: November 2, 2026
