Basavaraju B S Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ECOMP. NO. 643407 FILE NO. TOTMK-ADMOOTHR/20/2025-ADMN-TALUK OFFICE TUMKUR DATED 21/03/2025 AND ANOTHER ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. ECOMP. NO. 643407 FILE NO. TOTMKADMOOTHR/20/2025-ADMN-TALUK OFFICE TUMKUR DATED 27/05/2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES H AND K RESPECTIVELY.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned AGA takes notice for both the respondents.

¶32

In terms of the impugned endorsement, the

¶33

Tahsildar has rejected the request made by the petitioners to remove the forfeiture 'PADA' entered in the RTC, on the ground that the entry was made first in the year 1940 and

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:30642 WP No. 18363 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

therefore, there is enormous delay on the part of the petitioners to seek revocation of the forfeiture clause.

¶38

This Court in the case of Shivanna Vs. Deputy Commissioner and Others in WP.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 held as follows:

¶39

"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 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.

¶40

8. The case on hand definitely does not fall in the other category. Therefore, in terms of second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 163, it is required to be held that there could not have been a declaration of forfeiture in the present case. However having regard to the provisions referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Deputy Commissioner or the delegated

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30642 WP No. 18363 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

authority, i.e., the Tahasildar is required to collect the arrears of land revenue in terms of the check list prepared by the Tahasildar and formally pass an order of cancellation of forfeiture (PADA). This Court would also concur with the opinion of the coordinate Bench in the case of B.M. Bayappa Reddy, since deceased by LRS Vs. State of Karnataka and another, in W.P. No.33222/2016 dated 27.06.2022, that no time frame is fixed for collection of the arrears of land revenue, unless the forfeited land is otherwise disposed of."

¶44

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

¶45

The impugned endorsement at Annexure - K

¶46

passed by the 2^nd respondent – Tahsildar is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶47

The Tahsildar, Tumkur taluk is hereby directed to collect the arrears of land revenue from the petitioners and pass formal orders for cancellation of the forfeiture (PADA). Thereafter the petitioners are permitted to seek entry of their names in terms of the registered sale deeds dated 27.08.1963, 14.09.1963 and 14.08.1964.

¶48