Kusuma vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 3062 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3062 Kant
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kusuma vs State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2026

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                                -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:19354
                                                       WP No. 31331 of 2025


                 HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                              BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 31331 OF 2025 (LR)
                BETWEEN:

                       KUSUMA
                       W/O. K.R. PUTTASWAMY,
                       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                       R/AT. KENCHENAHALLI,
                       BANAWARA HOBLI,
                       ARASIKERE TALUK,
                       HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 112.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B, ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
Digitally signed
by JUANITA             M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
THEJESWINI             BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF         2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA              HASSAN SUB - DIVISION,
                       HASSAN - 573 201.

                3.     THE TAHASILDAR,
                       ARASIKERE TALUK
                       ARASIKERE - 573 103.
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS
                (BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:19354
                                        WP No. 31331 of 2025


HC-KAR



     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED     ORDER   PASSED     BY    THE    2ND   RESPONDENT
ASSISTANT     COMMISSIONER,         HASSAN    SUB-   DIVISION,
HASSAN IN CASE NO. LRF 79(A) AND (B) 15/2013-14, DATED
10-06-2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND RESTORE THE LAND IN
FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AND ETC.,

     THIS    PETITION,     COMING     ON     FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING, 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.

2. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by

the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in

proceedings bearing No.L.R.F.79(A) & (B):15/2013-14

dated 10.06.2016 at Annexure-D.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has

been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice

NC: 2026:KHC:19354

HC-KAR

to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar

circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021

remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner

for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of

hearing to the aggrieved person.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader points

out from the impugned order that notice was indeed

issued to the petitioner and in spite of notice having been

issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant

Commissioner.

5. Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka

Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no

proceedings were pending before any court/authority.

6. This Court had several occasions to consider

such cases, where writ petitions are filed long after the

provisions contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C were

omitted from the statute book in terms of the Karnataka

NC: 2026:KHC:19354

HC-KAR

Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. It is the

consistent opinion of this Court that if at any rate, the

Assistant Commissioner, after forfeiting the land has not

disposed of the same in accordance with law then the

benefit of the saving clause contained in Section 12 of the

Amending Act is required to be given to such petitioners.

The Assistant Commissioner is therefore, required to

ascertain, whether the declared excess lands or forfeited

lands still remain with the State Government or has been

granted to third parties. If the lands have been granted to

third party, then sub-section(1) of Section 12 of the

amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings have

reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section

12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further

proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant

Commissioner.

7. Having considered the submission of the

learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-

ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that

NC: 2026:KHC:19354

HC-KAR

facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite

similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the co-

ordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

8. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is disposed of.

ii) The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.