'State Doesn't Have 5 Acres For Soldier Who Served Nation': Karnataka High Court Laments In Ex-Serviceman's Plea For Grant Of Land

The Karnataka High Court set aside a single judge's direction to grant five acres of agricultural land to an ex-serviceman, holding that the amended Rule 8(8) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules entitles him only to a residential site of 2,400 square feet where Government land is unavailable.

The Court, however, recorded its regret in detail about the current state of affairs. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398]

A Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan observed as below:

“…We pass this order with a heavy heart, as the State does not have five acres of land to be granted to a soldier who has served the nation. The earlier rule providing for the grant of five acres of land to soldiers has since been amended, and under the amended rule, the petitioner is offered only 2,400 square feet of land, which he has declined to accept. We are conscious of the services and sacrifices rendered by the petitioner to the nation. Nevertheless, in view of the amended rule, we are, with an unwilling mind and a deep sense of regret, constrained to pass the present order in accordance with the prevailing legal position…"

The respondent (petitioner before single judge) was an ex-serviceman whom, as a landless person, applied for the grant of 5 acres in 2000, had applied in 2000 for grant of five acres of Government land in Magudi Taluk of Ramanagara District, under the ex-servicemen quota contemplated by the Karnataka Land Grant Rules.

In 2001, the said request was rejected with the reasoning that no such government land was available for grant in the Magadi Taluk of Ramanagara. A further representation in 2020 was also rejected by the District's Deputy Commissioner that year itself. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved a writ petition before the single judge's bench. 

The State refrained from filing their objections to the plea. During the pendency of the writ, the Tahsildar appeared before the single judge bench and submitted a memo regarding the grant of land in Magadi Taluk itself, subject to the approval of higher authorities. Noting the same, the single judge bench, directed the respondent authorities to grant land within 4 months and effect consequential mutation and revenue entries. Accordingly, the plea was disposed of.

The respondent was granted the liberty to seek exemplary costs payable from the pockets of the officials concerned if the state were not to comply.

Later, the State preferred a review plea stating that the land recommended by the Tahsildar was already proposed for reservation by the Forest Department as alternate land for Makedatu Project. Therefore, according to the State, there was no other government land available for allocation in the said district. Reliance was also placed on Rule 8 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules.

However, the review plea was dismissed by citing that the Tahsildar had been personally present and the AGA had filed the memo on his instructions. The State and its officers moved the division bench in Appeal. 

The respondent also filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by the single judge. 

Before the Division Bench, the State argued that the undertaking given by the Tahsildar was factually incorrect and contrary to the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. Under the amended Rule 8(8), an ex-serviceman could not insist on five acres of agricultural land where none was available. In such instances, a residential site of 2,400 sq ft in a rural area or 1,200 sq ft in an urban area would be earmarked for him, the State contended.

The Court agreed with the said submission and noted that the amended proviso to Rule 8 allows government to allot a residential site free of cost in their native taluk, or if unavailable, in any other taluk of the concerned district, under an existing housing scheme or a special State scheme for eligible ex-servicemen. Based on this rule, back in 2023, a residential area of 2400 sq ft was allotted to the respondent in Magadi Taluk, the court pointed out.

Rule 8(8) 'itself contemplates an alternative mechanism in the event Government land is not available for grant to soldiers and ex-servicemen', the court noted while stating that the vires of the provision itself had not been challenged by the soldier.

“….When a statutory provision remains unchallenged, the Court is required to give effect to the provision as it stands. The executive authorities are equally bound to implement the Rule in its true letter and spirit. The appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the statutory provision merely on the basis of an administrative understanding which is inconsistent with the plain language and object of Rule 8(8)…”, the court said.

The respondent, as per the state, had declined to accept the offer of residential land measured in square foot.

“…The entitlement flowing from the Rule is not dependent upon the creation of a fresh right by an individual administrative order. It is a statutory benefit arising from the Rule itself, subject, of course, to the conditions prescribed therein. The authorities are therefore required to examine the claim in the light of the Rule and cannot defeat the benefit conferred thereunder by adopting an interpretation which renders the substantive provision otiose…”, the court noted further.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the single judge's earlier order. The contempt petition filed by the ex-servicemen in the writ appeal, alleging disobedience of the earlier order was also dismissed.

“…. Insofar as the contempt proceedings are concerned, the contempt petition proceeds on the allegation that the order passed by the learned Single Judge has not been complied with. However, in view of the order now being passed in the writ appeal, the very foundation of the contempt proceedings no longer survives…”, the court concluded.