The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →The Karnataka High Court has not awarded ex-serviceman Vemanna G. five acres of agricultural land. On 11 September 2026, a Division Bench allowed the State’s appeal, set aside an earlier order directing completion of a five-acre land proposal, and dismissed Vemanna’s connected contempt petition. The Bench said it acted “with a heavy heart” because the State did not have five acres to grant, while explaining that amended Rule 8(8) provides a different alternative when Government land for grant is unavailable: a free residential site, subject to the rule’s conditions.
What the High Court decided
In State of Karnataka v. Vemanna G., a Division Bench comprising Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan allowed the State’s writ appeal. The oral order was delivered per Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan. The Bench set aside the single judge’s order of 6 December 2022, which had directed the authorities to complete a proposed five-acre grant. It also dismissed Vemanna’s connected contempt petition because the order he said had been disobeyed no longer survived.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Law of Saguvali Chits and Certificates of Grants In Karnataka (Kannada) | $9.60 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Karnataka Education Act in Kannada | $7.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice in Kannada | $9.50 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
The Law of Faith | $9.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Kannada | $12.48 | Buy on Amazon |
The result was not a grant of agricultural land, nor a general ruling that every soldier or ex-serviceman is automatically entitled to a particular parcel or title. The dispute concerned Vemanna’s request, the State’s appeal from the specific order in his case, and the alternative-site provision the Bench read in amended Rule 8(8). Karnataka High Court, State of Karnataka v. Vemanna G., CCC No. 484 of 2023 connected with WA No. 1909 of 2025, order dated 11 September 2026.
How the five-acre proposal became a court dispute
-
2000: Vemanna sought five acres of agricultural land. The authorities rejected his request in 2001, citing the lack of land available for grant.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteSpecial offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy. -
2020: He renewed his representation.
-
2022: A single judge disposed of his writ petition after an official memo and an assurance from revenue authorities that a five-acre proposal in Survey No. 67, Madigondanahalli village, would be acted on. The order required the proposal to materialize within four months and directed the authorities to issue a grant order and make revenue entries.
-
After the order: The State said the parcel had been proposed for reservation for forest use as alternate land in connection with the Mekedatu Project and that Government land was not available for the grant. That was the State’s explanation recorded in the later proceedings.
-
2025–2026: The State’s review petition failed in 2025, after which it appealed. Vemanna filed a connected contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the 2022 order. The Division Bench allowed the appeal on 11 September 2026 and dismissed the contempt petition along with it.
What Rule 8(8) says about an alternative site
The Bench read amended Rule 8(8) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules as providing a residential-site alternative where Government land is unavailable for grant to a soldier or ex-serviceman. The site is to be in the person’s native taluk; if one is unavailable there, the rule provides for a site in another taluk of the same district. The judgment states the relevant alternative dimensions as follows:
Recommended Free Tools
| Setting stated in the judgment | Residential-site area |
|---|---|
| Rural area | 2,400 square feet |
| Urban area | 1,200 square feet |
The judgment also discusses a specific provision for a native taluk within Bengaluru Urban District. These dimensions describe the residential-site alternative the Bench discussed; they do not turn that alternative into five acres of agricultural land or establish unconditional entitlement to ownership. Eligibility and the applicable rule conditions still matter.
Why the Ashraya site was not the same as a final grant
The judgment records a provisional 2,400-square-foot site for Vemanna under the Ashraya Scheme. The State’s counsel told the Bench that Vemanna was first among 27 identified beneficiaries and assured the court that his site would be granted. The order says Vemanna declined the offer.
Rank #4
The provisional allotment required documents and verification, including proof of Karnataka residency at the time of service, an income certificate, and an affidavit stating that no grant had been received elsewhere. The court recorded that ownership would not accrue until final grant. A provisional allotment therefore should not be described as completed title.
Why the Bench used the words “with a heavy heart”
The oral order opens: “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 Bench also said it was conscious of Vemanna’s service and sacrifices, but was constrained to decide according to the prevailing legal position. The empathetic language accompanied—not reversed—the operative decision: the State’s appeal was allowed and the earlier direction to complete the five-acre proposal was set aside. Karnataka High Court, order dated 11 September 2026.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Best Value
How this differs from an earlier land-availability case
In a separate 2023 case involving another ex-serviceman, the Karnataka High Court held that a Tahsildar could not reject a request solely because land was unavailable in the requested survey number. The authority had to follow a 24 June 2021 notification and identify land in another survey number or village. That decision concerned a different applicant and an administrative search for substitute land; it does not change the outcome or specific Rule 8(8) analysis in Vemanna’s 2026 case. Karnataka High Court, Sri D Shantharaju v. The State of Karnataka, WP No. 8480 of 2022, order dated 28 June 2023.
A 2020 judgment discussed an earlier version of the rules, including a 10 percent reservation for ex-servicemen and soldiers. Because that judgment predates the amendment considered in Vemanna’s case, its description should not be treated as a statement of the current operative entitlement. Karnataka High Court, Philip Stephen v. The State of Karnataka, order dated 2 September 2020.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
