Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
WP No. 23513 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. 23513 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJAMMA
W/O LATE ONI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
2. SMT. UMA DEVI
D/O LATE ONI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
3. SMT. BHARATHI
D/O LATE ONI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE ONI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
Digitally signed ALL ARE R/AT HOVINAYAKANAHALLI
by CHAITHRA A JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK
Location: HIGH BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 157.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THOUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER
MR. R. SATHISH
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU-562 106.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
WP No. 23513 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
YALAHANKA TALUKA
MINI VIDHANSOUDAH
YALAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 063.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CANCEL THE DECLARATION OF
FORFEITURE, BY COLLECTING THE ARREARS OF LAND
REVENUE DUE AND ALL EXPENSES INCURRED SO FAR IN THE
RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AS MAY BE FIXED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSIDERATION
OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 11/07/2013 (ANNEXURE-H) IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING (1) SY NO.81 MEASURING 01
ACRE 14 GUNTAS, (2) SY NO.82 MEASURING 04 ACRES 23
GUNTAS, (3) SY NO.89 MEASURING 04 ACRES 04 GUNTAS,
(4) SY NO.91 MEASURING 03 ACRES 11 GUNTAS, (5) SY NO.94
MEASURING 01 ACRES 14 GUNTAS AND (6) SY NO.105
MEASURING 1-00 ACRES OF HUVINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
WP No. 23513 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is seeking a mandamus against respondent
No.4 to consider petitioner's representation dated
11.7.2013 as per Annexure-H and to cancel the
declaration of forfeiture by collecting arrears of land
revenue due and all expenses incurred so far in the
recovery proceedings in respect of the petition lands
bearing Survey Nos.81 measuring 1 acre 1 1/4 guntas, 82
measuring 4 acres 23 guntas, 89 measuring 4 acres 4
guntas, 91 measuring 03 acres 11 guntas, 94 measuring 1
acre 14 guntas and 104 measuring 1 acre of
Huvinayakanahalli village, Jala Hobli, Yalahanka Taluk.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned AGA and perused the records.
3. Petitioners are the owner of the petition lands.
Petitioners assert that petition lands are ancestral
properties of petitioners and were acquired by their grand
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
father who purchased the petition lands under registered
sale deed dated 7.9.1954. Petitioners are also asserting
right based on occupancy rights granted under the
provisions of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)
Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
4. Respondents on the premise that petitioners
have 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. Petitioners are also placing reliance on the
notification dated 7.12.2012 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
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
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).
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.""
LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-47 [WP.6091/2006 DD 2.11.2009]
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
6. In the 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
power of the State to forfeit the lands where there is a
default of payment 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.4/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
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
Section 163 of the Act is followed and the land in question
are forfeited. This is also not preceded by proclamation
and notice of intended declaration. The petitioners in all
probabilities are aggrieved by the entries effected in
columns 9 and 12(2) 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
forfeiture order under Section 163 of the Act.
8. Be that as it may. The Tahsildhar cannot
declare any occupancy or hereditary holdings to be
forfeited 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 petitioners have come forward to pay land
revenue arrears due with interest, this Court is of the view
NC: 2024:KHC:35924
that this is a fit case where a mandamus lies.
The petitioners being original land owners have a legal
right to seek deletion of entries indicated in columns 9 and
12 (2). Respondents are equally obligated to consider the
petitioners' right vide representation dated 11.07.2013.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to
consider the petitioners' representation dated
11.7.2013 as per Annexure-"H" 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
ALB
