Sri D v Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI D. V. SURESH, S/O PATEL VENKATACHALAIAH @ VENKATACHALAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.07, SLV NILAYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MATHRUSHREE ENCLAVE, DASANAPURA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT – 562 162

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR REVENUE, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA – 562 159

¶17

THE THASILDHAR MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 120

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K. P. YOGANNA, AGA)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30024 WP No. 23089 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN CASE NO. LRF.79A AND B(MA) NO. 32/2012-13 DATED 23.01.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND QUASH THE ORDER NIL DATED PASSED IN CASE NO. RRT(D0136/2022-23 BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶28

the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 23.01.2017 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara SubDivision, without issuing notice to the petitioner. In that regard, attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure-G which is the order sheet maintained by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30024 WP No. 23089 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate points

¶32

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 (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any Court/authority.

¶34

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.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30024 WP No. 23089 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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.

¶38

6. For the reasons stated above, this Court

¶39

proceeds to pass the following;

¶40

: O R D E R :

¶41

(i) The writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

(ii) The matter is remitted 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 Land

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30024 WP No. 23089 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶46

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 28.08.2025 without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶47

(iv) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 23.01.2017, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶48

Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶50

permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶51

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶52

KLY CT: JL

Sri D v. Suresh v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D v. Suresh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shashikala Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Thasildar

Smt Venkatamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Siraj Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

B Y Vishesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Zeenath Begum @ Zeenath Unnisa Vs Deputy Commissioner