Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
WP No. 30175 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 30175 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/A LAVIGERE VILLAGE
TYAGARTHI POST, SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577401
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIL SHEKAR K S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by JUANITA REPT BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
THEJESWINI
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001.
2. TAHSILDAR
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAGAR SUB DIVISION, SAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
WP No. 30175 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIVAMOGGA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE,
SHIVAMOGGA 577201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT PASSED BY THE R3 REJECTING
APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF LANDS(ANNX-
K).DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CONSIDERED THE
REPRESENTATION DTD 16.08.2021 FOR RESTORATION OF
LANDS IN REVENUE RECORDS(ANNX-L).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order
dated 25.10.2019 at Annexure 'K' passed by the
respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, rejecting
the application filed by the petitioner to restore the
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
revenue entry in favour of the petitioner in respect of
Sy.No.29 measuring 4 acres, Sy.No.130 measuring 4
acres and Sy.No.135 measuring 4 acres totally 12 acres,
all situated at Laavigere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sagara
Taluk, Shivamogga District. It is also the grievance of the
petitioner that the representation given to the Prl.
Secretary, Revenue Department at Annexure 'L' has also
not been looked into and no orders have been passed in
that regard.
2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner had
availed loan from the Karnataka State Khadi and
Gramodyoga Board in the year 1997-98 in a sum of
Rs.1,07,500/- and the non-payment of the loan along with
interest resulted in orders being passed by the Tahsildar
notifying the said lands belonging to the petitioner as
'Sarkari Pada'. However, after the petitioner repaid the
entire amount to the Board, the petitioner approached the
competent authority seeking to remove the encumbrance
'Sarkari Pada' from the RTC. However, the Deputy
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
Commissioner has passed the impugned order citing Rule
119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and
expressing his inability to accede to the request made by
the petitioner on the ground that the request was not
made within the stipulated period of three years.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place
reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.33222/2016 dated 27.06.2022 where it was
held, having regard to Section 163(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964, that the Tahsildar, before such
occupancy or alienated holding is sold or otherwise
disposed of, may cancel the declaration of forfeiture, if the
defaulter or any person interested in the occupancy or
alienated holding pays the entire arrears of the land
revenue along with all expenses incurred to the recovery
proceedings.
4. This Court too in the case of Shivanna Vs.
Deputy Commissioner and Others in
W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 has held while
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
considering Rule 119, that the intention of the amended
provision which came into effect on 01.04.1998 is to grant
regularization 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.
5. For immediate reference paragraph No.7 in the
said judgment is culled out as follows:
"7. 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. In the
considered opinion of this Court a plain reading of
the provisions contained in Section 163 and the
Rules, including Rule 119, it is clear that in the
normal circumstances where there is arrears of
land revenue, it is not the intention of the
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
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 Courts and authorities
deem it fit to direct recovery of such debts to be
collected as arrears of land revenue."
6. In the present case, however the forfeiture was
not on account of any non-payment of land revenue at the
hands of the petitioner. It was an endorsement made at
the instance of the Karnataka State Khadi Gramodyoga
Board where the petitioner had availed loans.
7. The Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order
has noticed the fact that the petitioner has repaid all the
loan amount along with the interest to the Board and the
Board has issued 'No Due Certificate' to the petitioner.
Despite the same, the Deputy Commissioner has pleaded
inability on the ground that the petitioner has filed the
application after three years.
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
8. As noticed in paragraph No.7 of the decision of
this Court in the case of Shivanna (supra), the intention
of the amended provision which came into effect on
01.04.1998 was to grant relaxation and enable the
revenue authorities to accept the application for
cancellation of the forfeiture even in cases where lands
were sold and purchased on account of the Government
dues, but which were not disposed of otherwise.
9. This is a clear case where admittedly the lands
have not been disposed of at the hands of the revenue
authorities. It is not a case where the land revenues are
due at the hands of the petitioner. It is also necessary to
notice that Section 176 of the Act, provides for
circumstances where even the sale can be set aside.
Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 176 enables the
Deputy Commissioner to set aside the same on the
defaulting person depositing the amount before the
Deputy Commissioner along with costs of sale and a sum
equal to five percentum of the purchase money. When
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
such is the position of law, and when admittedly the lands
of the petitioner have not been disposed of otherwise, it
was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to accept
the application filed by the petitioner while removing the
forfeiture clause. It is also necessary to notice that
though a representation was given by the petitioner at
Annexure 'L' to the Prl. Secretary, Department of Revenue,
no action has been taken by the Prl. Secretary.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 25.10.2019 at Annexure 'K' passed
by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
Shivamogga, is hereby quashed and set aside. The
application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The second
respondent-Deputy Commissioner, is directed to remove
the clause in the RTC and remove the words 'Sarkari Pada'
from the revenue records of the petitioner pertaining to
the lands in question. The entire exercise shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate
NC: 2025:KHC:29148
HC-KAR
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
JT/-
CT: JL
