<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that merely because a portion of the land (kharab) escapes assessment and the liability to pay land revenue that would not result in divesting of the ownership of the holder, and would also not result in the transfer of the ownership to the state.</p>.<p>Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said this while passing orders in the petitions involving the issue as to whether the kharab lands are owned by the individuals or by the state.</p>.<p>The petitioners, landowners from Honnihal village of Bilagi taluk of Bagalkot district, were before the court after the authorities denied compensation for the kharab part of their land. Their lands were submerged due to the execution of the Upper Krishna Project in 1995-96. While determining the compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) refused to award compensation to that portion of the land, which had been classified as phot kharab.</p>.<p>Justice Sanjay Gowda noted that the law recognises that even the Kharab portion of a land has always been considered as being owned by an individual and the individual would never lose title over that land, in which a portion is classified as unarable. “Every land which is measured and classified as a survey number, the title of the said survey number would always vest with the individual and no portion of it would be transferred in favour of the state merely because that portion has been classified as unarable,” the court said.</p>.<p>The government had contended that the property classified as phot kharab belonged to the state and therefore, compensation was not required to be paid. The government further maintained that since it has not collected the revenue for the kharab portion, it was the land belonging to the state and unless that portion which had been classified as ‘A’ Kharab had been granted by the competent authority before the issuance of the 4(1) notification, no compensation was liable to be paid.</p>.<p>“The state cannot deny compensation to the petitioners on the premise that the land is not assessed to revenue or that certain members of the public or the general public are using a portion of the land. The mere usage of the land by the public will not result in the title of the land being vested in the State,” Justice Sanjay Gowda said.</p>.<p>The court has directed the SLAO to determine the compensation payable for the portion of kharab belonging to the petitioners within three months.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that merely because a portion of the land (kharab) escapes assessment and the liability to pay land revenue that would not result in divesting of the ownership of the holder, and would also not result in the transfer of the ownership to the state.</p>.<p>Justice N S Sanjay Gowda said this while passing orders in the petitions involving the issue as to whether the kharab lands are owned by the individuals or by the state.</p>.<p>The petitioners, landowners from Honnihal village of Bilagi taluk of Bagalkot district, were before the court after the authorities denied compensation for the kharab part of their land. Their lands were submerged due to the execution of the Upper Krishna Project in 1995-96. While determining the compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) refused to award compensation to that portion of the land, which had been classified as phot kharab.</p>.<p>Justice Sanjay Gowda noted that the law recognises that even the Kharab portion of a land has always been considered as being owned by an individual and the individual would never lose title over that land, in which a portion is classified as unarable. “Every land which is measured and classified as a survey number, the title of the said survey number would always vest with the individual and no portion of it would be transferred in favour of the state merely because that portion has been classified as unarable,” the court said.</p>.<p>The government had contended that the property classified as phot kharab belonged to the state and therefore, compensation was not required to be paid. The government further maintained that since it has not collected the revenue for the kharab portion, it was the land belonging to the state and unless that portion which had been classified as ‘A’ Kharab had been granted by the competent authority before the issuance of the 4(1) notification, no compensation was liable to be paid.</p>.<p>“The state cannot deny compensation to the petitioners on the premise that the land is not assessed to revenue or that certain members of the public or the general public are using a portion of the land. The mere usage of the land by the public will not result in the title of the land being vested in the State,” Justice Sanjay Gowda said.</p>.<p>The court has directed the SLAO to determine the compensation payable for the portion of kharab belonging to the petitioners within three months.</p>