Sri Narayanaswmy v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6710 OF 2026 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI NARAYANASWMY S/O LATE PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDIGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562122 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE TAHSILDHAR HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE-562114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SESHU.V., HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.05.2000 BEARING CASE NO. LRF. SR. 418/1996-97 VIDE ANNX-C PASSED BY THE R3 AUTHORITY HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND DIRECTING THE R4 AUTHORITY TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS BEARING SY. NO. 24/2 NEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 12 1/2 GUNTAS AND SY. NO. 24/4 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 04 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 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.

¶2The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dated 04.05.2000 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, for violation

of the provisions contained in Section 79A and 79B of the Act.

¶3Learned 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.

¶4Learned 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.

¶5Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any court/authority.

¶6This 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

proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶7Having considered the submissions 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.

¶8Accordingly, 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.

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated

12.02.2016, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 18th March 2026, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner. Ordered accordingly.

¶9Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

DL CT: JL