Karnataka High Court
Sri K B Nagarajaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:697
WP No. 28249 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.28249 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI K B NAGARAJAIAH
S/O LATE BALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O KANNASANDRA VILLAGE
SOLUR HOBLI
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127,
BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.YOGESH V. KOTENATH ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RAMANAGARA-562 159
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:697
WP No. 28249 of 2024
3. THE TAHSILDAR
MAGADI TALUK
MAGADI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE
SIMILAR NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES
MORE PARTICULARLY THE R-3 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATIONS DTD 31.07.2013, 21.02.2019 AND 22.06.2020
VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C AND D RESPECTIVELY AND PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR CANCELLATION OF FORFEITURE
(PHADA) AND ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE
REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY
NO.22/03 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 9 GUNTAS SITUATED AT
KANNASANDRA VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT EXPEDITIOUSLY AND ETC.
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
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a
mandamus directing the respondents' Authority, more
particularly, respondent No.3 - Tahasildar to consider the
NC: 2025:KHC:697
petitioner's representations dated 31.07.2013, 21.02.2019
and 22.06.2020 as per Annexures-B, C and D respectively
and pass appropriate orders.
2. The respondent No.3 - Tahasildar has notified
the land bearing Sy. Nos.22/3 measuring 9 guntas as
"Sarkari Pada" on the ground that the petitioner has
defaulted in paying the revenue.
3. The petitioner claims to be owner of the
agricultural land bearing Sy. No.22/3 measuring 9 guntas
situated at Kannasandra Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi
Taluk. The Revenue Authorities having noticed that there
is a default in not paying the revenue assessed by the
Authorities have proceeded to notify the petition land as
"Sarkari Pada". The petitioner has now submitted detailed
representations with an undertaking that he would pay the
arrears of revenue. This writ petition is filed alleging that
there is inaction on the part of the Revenue Authorities in
not considering the petitioner's request made under the
representations.
NC: 2025:KHC:697
4. The matter concerning the removal of the entry
"Sarkari Pada" from the RTC was comprehensively
addressed by a Co-ordinate Bench in its unreported
judgment rendered in SMT. RAJAMMA AND OTHERS V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (W.P.
No.23513/2024, dated 02.09.2024). In its analysis of
Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Section 87(i) of
the Act read in conjunction with Rule 119 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ("the Rules"), the Co-ordinate
Bench arrived at significant conclusions regarding the
authority of the jurisdictional Tahasildar.
5. The Bench categorically held that the jurisdictional
Tahasildar does not have the authority to forfeit lands to
the State Government solely on the grounds of arrears of
land revenue, unless the legally due arrears exceed the
threshold of Rs.10,000/-. Furthermore, the Bench clarified
that the provisions of Section 163 of "the Act" and
Rule 119 of "the Rules" are not designed to empower the
NC: 2025:KHC:697
authorities to notify lands with pending revenue dues as
"Sarkari Pada." Instead, these provisions are intended to
create a charge over the land when the owner of
agricultural land defaults on the payment of land revenue.
6. Relying on this judgment, this Court is inclined to
issue directives to the jurisdictional Tahasildar,
emphasizing that the entry of "Sarkari Pada" in the RTC is
unwarranted under the circumstances defined by the Act
and the Rules. The Co-ordinate Bench emphasized that the
primary legislative intent behind the relevant provisions is
to secure revenue arrears by creating a charge on the land
rather than treating it as forfeited or state-owned merely
because of non-payment. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the
judgment are particularly relevant and highlight the
judicial reasoning and directives provided by the
Co-ordinate Bench. For better clarity and reference, the
same are extracted as follows:
"8. Be that as it may. The Tahsildhar cannot
declare any occupancy or hereditary holdings to be
NC: 2025:KHC:697
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 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."
7. In the light of the law laid down by the
Co-ordinate Bench in an unreported judgment, this is a fit
case, where mandamus lies. This Court, therefore,
proceeds to pass the following;
NC: 2025:KHC:697
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent No.3 - Tahasildar is
hereby directed to consider the
petitioner's representations dated
31.07.2013. 21.02.2019 and
22.06.2020 as per Annexures-B, C
and 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.
(iii) The respondent No.3 - Tahasildar is
hereby directed to raise a demand
and shall communicate the amount
that is liable to be levied on the
petitioner.
(iv) On such demand raised by
respondent No.3 - Tahasildar, the
petitioner within the period of two
weeks from the date of
communication shall deposit the
arrears of revenue. If such deposit
is made by the petitioner,
NC: 2025:KHC:697
respondent No.3 - Tahasildar shall
take appropriate steps to delete the
word 'Sarkari Pada' reflected in the
RTC, more particularly, in column
Nos.9 and 12.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
