Smt. Devamathe vs The State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1341 Kant

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1341 Kant
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Devamathe vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2026

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC:9361
                                                       WP No. 38637 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 38637 OF 2025 (LR)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. DEVAMATHE,
                   W/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA,
                   AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
                   R/AT HEBBALAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
                   HEBBALU POST AND HOBLI,
                   K.R NAGARA HOBLI, K R NAGARA TALUK,
                   MYSURU-571602.
                                                               ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

Digitally signed   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI              REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               VIDHANAN SOUDHA
                        BENGALURU-560001.

                   2.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                        HUNASURU SUB DIVISION,
                        HUNASURU
                        MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.

                   3.   THE TAHASILDAR,
                        K.R NAGARA KR NAGARA TALUK
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC:9361
                                        WP No. 38637 of 2025


HC-KAR




    MYSURU DISTRICT-571602.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA)

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION    OF   INDIA    PRAYING   TO    CALL   FOR    THE
RECORDS AND QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN L.R.F.
135/14-15 DTD. 24.10.2016 BY THE R-2 IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH AS ANNX-D.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY,
STAYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN L.R.F.135/14-15
DTD. 24.10.2016 BY THE R-2 UNDER ANNX-D WHICH IS
NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS


                      ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

notice for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being

aggrieved of the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the 2nd

respondent - Assistant Commissioner in LRF:135/14-15 in

terms of Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961.

NC: 2026:KHC:9361

HC-KAR

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

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 Additional Government Advocate 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 (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, no proceedings

were pending before any court/authority.

NC: 2026:KHC:9361

HC-KAR

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

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

NC: 2026:KHC:9361

HC-KAR

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 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 79A and 79B of the Karnataka

NC: 2026:KHC:9361

HC-KAR

Land Reforms Act, 1961 in Karnataka

(Second Amendment) Act No.56 of 2020.