Karnataka High Court
Mr. Hutcha Hanumaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
WP No. 20320 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.20320 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. HUTCHA HANUMAIAH
S/O. LATE GUJJARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.48, UDDANDAHALLI
CHIKKANAHALLI POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI
BENGALURU-562 130.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL .M.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKASA SOUDHA
Digitally signed by DR.B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
CHAITHRA A BENGALURU-560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BEHIND KHANDAYA BHAVAN
K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
KHANDAYA BHAVANA, K G ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISHA .A.S, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
WP No. 20320 of 2024
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DTD. 28.03.2024 BEARING NO.
RRT(T)(PHADA)CR/555/22-23 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE
ANNX-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner
feeling aggrieved by the impugned endorsement vide
Annexure-F issued by respondent No.3/Tahsildar and a
mandamus is also sought to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3
to restore the revenue entry in respect of the land in
Sy.No.12/8 measuring 17 guntas situated at Dhoninahalli
Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in the
name of the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner is the owner of the petition land
bearing Sy.No.12/8 measuring 17 guntas having inherited
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
the same through his paternal uncle namely Hutcha
Hanuma who died issueless. Petitioner submitted a
representation to the respondent No.3 for restoration of
phada and entering the revenue entry in the name of the
petitioner. However, the respondents failed to consider
the representation. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.14518/2023. The coordinate Bench allowed the
writ petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the
representation submitted by the petitioner within a period
of three months. As there was no compliance, petitioner
was compelled to file a contempt petition. During the
pendency of contempt petition, respondent No.3 issued
the impugned endorsement dated 28.03.2024 stating that
the application is not filed within the time provided under
Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.
4. Respondents on the premise that petitioner has
failed to pay taxes, by way of mutation, has notified in the
RTCs as "Sarkari Pada" by exercising the power under
Chapter 14 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
Petitioner is also placing reliance on the notification dated
7.12.2011 wherein an amendment is brought by
incorporating Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Rules, 1966 enabling the owners to file application for
restoration of land which have been declared as
pada/beelu for non-payment of Land Revenue to the State
within twelve months w.e.f. 7.12.2011 to 7.12.2012.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka
Rajya Raitha Sangha Hiriyur Branch .vs. State of
Karnataka1 while examining the power of State in
forfeiting the lands where owners have failed to pay land
revenue has held at Paras 5.1 to 5.3 as under:
"(5) 5.1 It is settled law that the distraint forfeiture order
can be made only to the extent of land revenue arrears due
and if the petitioners come forward to pay the said land
revenue arrears, their possession has to be restored.
The said proposition is supported by the following decisions
of this Court: (i) Nagappa Gowda v. Gurupadappa (AIR
1954 Mysore 39); and (ii) Zaheera Banu Kareem v Gomathi
Bai G. Kamath (1996 (5) Kar LJ 354).
LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-47 [WP.6091/2006 DD 2.11.2009]
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
5.2 In Nagappa Gowda v. Gurupadappa (AIR 1954 Mysore
39), this Court has observed thus: "A mere forfeiture of
land followed by the restoration to the defaulting "holder"
does not wipe out all the earlier rights and equities that
may be subsisting as between private parties."
5.3 In Zaheera Banu Kareem v. Gomathi Bai G. Kamath
(1996 (5) Kar LJ 354), the Division Bench of this Court has
held thus: "In case of restoration of forfeited land to
defaulter on his payment of arrears of land revenue and
cost due from him, those charges, encumbrances, etc.
subsisting at time of forfeiture stand revived-Restoration is
not fresh grant, it reverts back to original position.""
6. In a reported judgment where the order of
forfeiture was passed, the Division Bench while examining
the validity of the forfeiture for non-payment of Land
Revenue has held that mere forfeiture of land followed by
restoration does not wipe out all earlier rights and
equities. The Division Bench further held that where
forfeiture order is recalled and the lands are restored to
the owners of the lands in question, it does not amount to
fresh grant, but, it only reverts back to original position.
The Division Bench also has elaborately dealt with the
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
power of the State to forfeit the lands where there is a
default of land revenue to the State.
7. In the present case on hand, the State has
resorted to the power conferred on it under Section 163 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "the
Act"). Respondent No.3/Tahsildar who is the competent
authority under the Act has not declared the lands in
question as forfeited. It is also not the case of
respondents that the procedure contemplated under
Section 163 of the Act is followed and the land in question
is forfeited. This is also not preceded by proclamation and
notice of intended declaration. The petitioner, in all
probability, is aggrieved by the entries effected wherein
the lands are declared as Sarkari Pada. The action of
respondents in notifying the land in question as sarkari
pada is not preceded by an forfeiture order under Section
163 of the Act.
8. Be that as it may. The Tahsildar cannot declare
any occupancy or hereditary holdings to be forfeited
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
without following the procedure. Further the provisions of
Section 163 of the Act, imposes an embargo on the
Tahsildar from declaring any occupancy or hereditary
holdings to be forfeited to the State Government where
the arrears of land revenue due does not exceed
Rs.10,000/-.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the present
case, since petitioner has come forward to pay land
revenue arrears due with interest, this Court is of the view
that this is a fit case where a mandamus lies.
The petitioner being original land owner has a legal right
to seek deletion of entries. Respondents are equally
obligated to consider the petitioner's representation dated
19.11.2022.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
NC: 2024:KHC:35954
(ii) The impugned endorsement dated
28.03.2024 issued by the respondent
No.3/Tahsildar vide Annexure-F is hereby
quashed;
(iii) Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to
consider the petitioner's representation dated
19.11.2022 as per Annexure-D and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law within
a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
