It appears there is no actual case provided. The information given is simply a reference to "Section 8(2) in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964" and the court being "State of Karnataka - Subsection" with a date of "6 March 1964". This is insufficient to create a case summary. To provide an accurate summary, I need the actual details of a specific case that invoked Section 8(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

However, I can provide a hypothetical example of how a summary would look if I had a case:

Short Summary

This case concerns a dispute over the recording of land ownership under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The High Court held that the revenue authorities erred in correcting the record of rights without providing adequate notice and opportunity to be heard to the affected parties, violating principles of natural justice.

Facts

Mr. Sharma claimed ownership of a parcel of land based on a registered sale deed. The land records initially reflected his ownership. Subsequently, the revenue authorities, acting under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, corrected the record of rights, reflecting Mr. Verma as the owner. Mr. Sharma was not notified of this correction.

Issues

1. Whether the revenue authorities can correct the record of rights under Section 8(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act without providing notice and opportunity to be heard to the affected parties.
2. Whether such correction violates principles of natural justice.

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Sharma)

Mr. Sharma argued that the correction of the record of rights without notice violated his right to property and principles of natural justice. He contended that Section 8(2) does not authorize arbitrary changes to land records.

Respondent's Arguments (State of Karnataka/Mr. Verma)

The State argued that Section 8(2) provides the revenue authorities with the power to correct errors in the record of rights. Mr. Verma claimed that the initial entry of Mr. Sharma's name was erroneous and the correction was necessary to reflect the true owner.

Court's Reasoning

The Court held that while Section 8(2) empowers revenue authorities to correct errors, this power must be exercised fairly and reasonably. The court emphasized that any correction affecting property rights requires adherence to principles of natural justice, including providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the failure to notify Mr. Sharma was a violation of these principles.

Conclusion

The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Mr. Sharma. The correction of the record of rights was quashed. The revenue authorities were directed to restore the original entry reflecting Mr. Sharma's ownership and to conduct a fresh inquiry after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to all interested parties.