Sri Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT PASSED BY THE R3 REJECTING APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF LANDS(ANNXK).DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CONSIDERED THE REPRESENTATION DTD 16.08.2021 FOR RESTORATION OF LANDS IN REVENUE RECORDS(ANNX-L).

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 at Annexure ‘K’ passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to restore the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:29148 WP No. 30175 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

revenue entry in favour of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.29 measuring 4 acres, Sy.No.130 measuring 4 acres and Sy.No.135 measuring 4 acres totally 12 acres, all situated at Laavigere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sagara Taluk, Shivamogga District. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the representation given to the Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department at Annexure ‘L’ has also not been looked into and no orders have been passed in that regard.

¶32

Undisputed facts are that the petitioner had availed loan from the Karnataka State Khadi and Gramodyoga Board in the year 1997-98 in a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- and the non-payment of the loan along with interest resulted in orders being passed by the Tahsildar notifying the said lands belonging to the petitioner as

¶33

‘Sarkari Pada’. However, after the petitioner repaid the entire amount to the Board, the petitioner approached the competent authority seeking to remove the encumbrance

¶34

‘Sarkari Pada’ from the RTC. However, the Deputy

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:29148 WP No. 30175 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Commissioner has passed the impugned order citing Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and expressing his inability to accede to the request made by the petitioner on the ground that the request was not made within the stipulated period of three years.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33222/2016 dated 27.06.2022 where it was held, having regard to Section 163(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, that the Tahsildar, before such occupancy or alienated holding is sold or otherwise disposed of, may cancel the declaration of forfeiture, if the defaulter or any person interested in the occupancy or alienated holding pays the entire arrears of the land revenue along with all expenses incurred to the recovery proceedings.

¶39

This Court too in the case of Shivanna Vs.

¶40

Deputy Commissioner and Others in

¶41

W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 has held while

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:29148 WP No. 30175 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

considering Rule 119, that the intention of the amended provision which came into effect on 01.04.1998 is to grant regularization 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.

¶45

For immediate reference paragraph No.7 in the said judgment is culled out as follows:

¶46

“7. Insofar as Rule 119 is concerned, even in subrule (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

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:29148 WP No. 30175 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

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.”

¶50

In the present case, however the forfeiture was

¶51

not on account of any non-payment of land revenue at the hands of the petitioner. It was an endorsement made at the instance of the Karnataka State Khadi Gramodyoga Board where the petitioner had availed loans.

¶52

The Deputy Commissioner, in the impugned order

¶53

has noticed the fact that the petitioner has repaid all the loan amount along with the interest to the Board and the Board has issued ‘No Due Certificate’ to the petitioner. Despite the same, the Deputy Commissioner has pleaded inability on the ground that the petitioner has filed the application after three years.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:29148 WP No. 30175 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

As noticed in paragraph No.7 of the decision of

¶58

this Court in the case of Shivanna (supra), the intention of the amended provision which came into effect on 01.04.1998 was to grant relaxation and enable the revenue authorities to accept the application for cancellation of the forfeiture even in cases where lands were sold and purchased on account of the Government dues, but which were not disposed of otherwise.

¶59

This is a clear case where admittedly the lands

¶60

have not been disposed of at the hands of the revenue authorities. It is not a case where the land revenues are due at the hands of the petitioner. It is also necessary to

¶61

notice that Section 176 of the Act, provides for circumstances where even the sale can be set aside. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 176 enables the Deputy Commissioner to set aside the same on the defaulting person depositing the amount before the Deputy Commissioner along with costs of sale and a sum equal to five percentum of the purchase money. When

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:29148 WP No. 30175 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

such is the position of law, and when admittedly the lands

¶65

of the petitioner have not been disposed of otherwise, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner to accept the application filed by the petitioner while removing the forfeiture clause. It is also necessary to notice that though a representation was given by the petitioner at Annexure ‘L’ to the Prl. Secretary, Department of Revenue, no action has been taken by the Prl. Secretary.

¶66

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 25.10.2019 at Annexure ‘K’ passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, is hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner is allowed. The second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, is directed to remove the clause in the RTC and remove the words ‘Sarkari Pada’ from the revenue records of the petitioner pertaining to

¶67

the lands in question. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

¶68