Sri.Girishankar Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI.GIRISHANKAR S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO. 733, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, E BLOCK, BEHIND SUBRAMANYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560010.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA.Y., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR STREET, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA-571401.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:32253 WP No. 16544 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SESHU.V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.L.R.F.239 2014-15 DATED 08-11-2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dated 08.11.2016 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.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32253 WP No. 16544 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

This Court had several occasions to consider

¶35

such cases, where writ petitions are filed long after the provisions contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C were

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32253 WP No. 16544 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:32253 WP No. 16544 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

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 coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶45

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶48

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.

¶49

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 08.11.2016, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32253 WP No. 16544 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 10^th September 2025 , without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶53

Ordered accordingly.

¶54

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶55

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶56

JT/CT: JL

Sri.Girishankar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Girishankar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammad Rusfeed Vs Rajiv Gandhi University

Smt Chennu Sampoornamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Balakrishna Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K K Mahesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chaluvarajegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Muninanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka