Sri.Rangaswamaiah v. The State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:12518( WP(No.(18784(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

NDDATED(THIS(THE(2 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R(DEVDAS( WRIT(PETITION(NO.18784(OF(2025((KLR-RR/SUR)( BETWEEN:(( (

1., SRI.,RANGASWAMAIAH,, SON,OF,LATE,HANUMANTHAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,73,YEARS,,, RESIDING,AT,NAGAVALLI,,, NAGAVALLI,POST,,HEBBUR,HOBLI,,, TUMAKURU,TALUK,,, TUMAKURU,DISTRICT,–,572,120., ,

2., SRI.,SANJEEVAIAH,, SON,OF,LATE,HANUMANTHAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,69,YEARS,,, RESIDING,AT,HANUMANTHANAARA,,, NAGAVALLI,POST,,HEBBUR,HOBLI,,, TUMAKURU,TALUK,, TUMAKURU,DISTRICT,–,572,120, Digitallytisignedtiby JUANITA , THEJESWINI 3., SRI.,RAJU,N,H,, Location:0HIGH SON,OF,LATE,HANUMANTHAIAH,,,,COURT0OF KARNATAKA AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,,, RESIDING,AT,HANUMANTHANAGARA,,, NAGAVALLI,POST,,HEBBUR,HOBLI,,, TUMAKURU,TALUK,,, TUMAKURU,DISTRICT,–,572,120, ,

4., SRI.,KRISHNAPPA,H,, SON,OF,LATE,HANUMANTHAIAH,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS,,, NDRESIDING,AT,NO.17/2,,2 ,A,CROSS,,, LAKSHMANA,NAGARA,,, HEGGANAHALLI,CROSS,,, NC:(2026:KHC:12518( WP(No.(18784(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( VISHWANDEEDAM,POST,,, BENGALURU,–,560,091., …PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,FAYAZ,SAB,B,G.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( (

1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY,, DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE,,, M.,S.,BUILDING,,, BENGALURU,–,560,001., ,

2., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU,DISTRICT,, TUMAKURU,CITY,–,572,101., ,

3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, FIRST,FLOOR,,, DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,OFFICE,COMPLEX,, TUMAKURU,CITY,–,572,101., ,

4., THE,TAHASILDAR, TUMAKURU,TALUK,,, DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,OFFICE,COMPLEX,, TUMAKURU,–,572,101., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SHAMANTH,NAIK.,,HCGP), , , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, MANDAMUS,, IN, THE, NATURE, OF, DIRECTION,, OR, ORDER,,DIRECTING,THE,RESPONDENTS,FOR,RESTORATION,OF, PADA, IN, RESPECT, OF, IMMOVABLE, PROPERTY, BEARING, SY.NO.354,, MEASURING, 2, ACRES, OUT, OF, 4, ACRES, AND, 09, GUNTAS, KHARAB,, SITUATED, AT, A.K.KAVAL, VILLAGE,, GULUR, HOBLI,, TUMAKURU, TALUK,, TUMAKURU, DISTRICT,, BY, CONSIDERING, THE, REPRESENTATIONS, DATED, 02.04.2025, AND,04.04.2025,WHICH,ARE,PRODUCED,HEREWITH,FOR,THE, KIND, PERUSAL, OF, THIS, HON'BLE, COURT, AND, MARKED, AS,

ANNEXURES-G AND H, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

¶2The grievance of the petitioners is that Sy.No.354 measuring 2 acres of land situated at A.K.Kaval Village, Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, Tumakuru District is shown as "SARKARI PADA" and the said entry has been made without notice to the owners/kathedars of the land. It is contention of the petitioners that the order of forfeiture was probably passed somewhere in the year 1974-75.

¶3This Court, in WP.No.19639/2021 dated

05.09.2022 considered the relevant provisions contained in sub-section

(1) of Section 163, sub-section (i) of Section 87 of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964, and Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, and held that, having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Sections 163 and 87, it is clear that the Tahsildar shall not declare any such occupancy or alienated land holding to be forfeited to the State Government, where the arrears of land revenue due does not exceed Rs.10,000.00. Similarly, this Court has held that insofar as Rule 119 is concerned, even in Sub-Rule 2, the intention of the amended provision, which came into effect on 01.04.1988 is to grant relaxation and enable the revenue authorities to accept the application for cancellation of forfeiture even in cases where the land was sold and purchased on account of the Government dues but which were not disposed of otherwise.

¶4In the considered opinion of this Court, a plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 163 and the Rules, including Rule 119, makes it clear that in the normal circumstances where there are arrears of land revenue, it is not the intention of the government to forfeit

the agricultural lands. On the other hand, the provisions are clearly directed towards the other cases where charges are created by orders passed by Courts of law and other competent authorities where the parties are in default for payment and the Courts and authorities deem it fit to direct recovery of such debts to be collected as arrears of land revenue.

¶5Consequently, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19639/2021 dated

05.09.2022 in the case of Shivanna Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No.4-Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk, to collect the arrears of land revenue, and formally pass an order of cancellation of forfeiture (PADA). The Tahsildar shall pass necessary orders intimating the petitioners as to the arrears of land revenue and on payment of the said arrears of land revenue, the Tahsildar shall pass necessary orders for cancellation of the order of the forfeiture passed earlier. The petitioners are also

permitted to file necessary application for entering the names of the petitioners and the Tahsildar shall also consider such an application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33