A defeated candidate’s chairmanship of an additional land committee in Byndoor has been struck down by the Karnataka High Court, which found that the State had not formed the opinion the statute requires and held that public office cannot be treated as a consolation prize for a defeated politician or a reward for political loyalty.
Bengaluru: Reasons first offered in an affidavit years later cannot justify a government decision, the Karnataka High Court has held while setting aside the State Government’s notifications of December 2023 that created an additional land regularisation committee for Byndoor taluk headed by Congress leader K. Gopal Poojary and split pending applications between it and the principal committee chaired by BJP MLA Gururaj Gantihole. The Court found that the State had not formed the opinion required by Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before issuing the notification [Gururaj Gantihole v. State of Karnataka & Others].
Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan sat as the Division Bench, and the judgment of November 2, 2026 was written by Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan. The Bench partly allowed Writ Appeal No. 2030 of 2026 against a Single Judge’s order of August 4, 2026 in W.P. No. 4097 of 2024.
Seats won and lost in Byndoor
Gururaj Gantihole won the Byndoor seat in the 2023 Assembly election and was named Chairman of the committee under Section 94-A(1) of the Act by a notification dated November 2, 2023. Before that committee could begin its sittings, a notification of December 4, 2023 constituted an Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) read with Rule 108-EE of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Its Chairman was Poojary, who had contested against Gantihole and lost.
A further notification, dated December 26, 2023, divided the jurisdictions: 12,313 pending applications went to Gantihole’s committee and 23,983 to the Additional Committee. Gantihole argued that this allocation, and the choice of his defeated rival, showed the Additional Committee was formed not out of need but to undermine the role of the elected MLA. He also challenged Rule 108-EE for allowing the State to appoint “a person” as Chairman without any qualification.
The State’s case and the Single Judge’s view
The State’s case was that the Act and Rules expressly allow an Additional Committee, that the need for one is a matter of the government’s subjective satisfaction, and that it was formed to dispose of the large number of pending applications in Byndoor and Vandse hoblis. Poojary’s was that Gantihole lacked locus standi, that roughly 17,000 to 18,000 applications were pending in the principal committee’s area and about 14,000 in Vandse hobli, and that losing an election did not disqualify him since the Rules prescribe no such bar. The Single Judge accepted the State’s position and dismissed the writ petition.
Why a 2026 affidavit could not explain a 2023 decision
The pendency figures the Single Judge relied on came from an affidavit dated July 29, 2026, filed only after the challenge, the Division Bench held, and they could not show what the government had considered when it acted almost three years earlier. Relying on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, it said:
“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.”
Letters on the record, the Court noted, showed Poojary writing to the then Revenue Minister to seek an Additional Committee, citing about 33,000 pending applications, and recommending himself as Chairman along with three proposed members. A similar letter dated November 24, 2023 from the Minister for Women and Child Development made the same recommendation, and both letters bore the Revenue Minister’s endorsement. The notification adopted exactly that composition, and the record disclosed no supporting data for the figures in the letters.
“Not a refuge for those who have lost their political standing”
On the Bench’s reading, the sequence suggested that what could not be secured through the election appeared to have been pursued through an indirect route. It said:
“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 State Government, it added, “must, therefore, remain above considerations of personal political advancement” and act on public interest and genuine administrative necessity. Holding that the December 4, 2023 notification breached a mandatory statutory precondition, the Bench quashed it along with the consequential notification of December 26, 2023.
Rule 108-EE stays, guidelines follow
Rule 108-E makes the MLA a mandatory member of the principal committee, the Court found, while Rule 108-EE lets the State appoint any “person” as Chairman of the Additional Committee without qualifications or guiding criteria, even though both bodies perform the same function. It declined to strike down Rule 108-EE but directed the State to frame guidelines with objective criteria, including legal knowledge, administrative ability, relevant experience, integrity, confidentiality and unimpeachable conduct, and to ensure a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary appointment process. No costs were imposed.
Reach beyond Byndoor
Land regularisation committees decide applications by cultivators of government land, and the judgment makes clear that the government’s power to add such committees must rest on recorded need at the time, not on reasons supplied years later in court. It also signals that appointments to statutory bodies cannot be used to accommodate electoral losers of any party.
The direction to frame guidelines under Rule 108-EE will apply beyond Byndoor, setting criteria for every Additional Committee chairman appointed in the State.
Case Title: Gururaj Gantihole v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No.: Writ Appeal No. 2030 of 2026 (KLR-RES)
Bench: Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan, Karnataka High Court
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
Appearance: Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M. with Shivani Shetty for the Appellant; I. Tharanath Poojary, AAG, with S.H. Raghavendra, AGA, for the State, Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar; P.D. Surana for K. Gopal Poojary and one other respondent