Disposed¶47

Sri.B.S.Raghupathy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2025WP/38052/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court 2025; WP 38052/2025 (LR); Land Reforms Act 1961 Sections 79-A 79-B omission; second amendment 13.07.2020; abatement of proceedings; Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Appeal 1173/2015 remand set aside; Assistant Commissioner endorsements Annexure-G G1; representation Annexure-H 03.07.2023; restoration of name in revenue records; Tahsildar Sagar Taluk; mandamus; Sasaravalli Village Sy.Nos. 87 87/1; disposed within 3 months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation at Annexure-H and pass necessary orders for restoration of the petitioner's name in the revenue entries, within a period not later than 3 months; petition disposed of accordingly. ¶47

Sri.B.S.Raghupathy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to restore the petitioner's name in all revenue records in respect of the scheduled lands by considering the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure-H) and the endorsements at Annexures-G and G1, in view of the omission of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Land Reforms Act. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Since the Assistant Commissioner's order stands set aside, respondent No.3 - Tahsildar is directed to consider the representation at Annexure-H and pass necessary orders for restoration of the petitioner's name in the revenue entries.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The omission of Sections 79-A and 79-B by the second amendment dated 13.07.2020 entails that all proceedings under the Land Reforms Act abate; consequently, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's direction for remand and fresh enquiry could not have been taken to a logical end.

¶38

Key takeaways

The Tribunal's order is to be construed as setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, with the remand direction standing abated; the Assistant Commissioner's stand in Annexures-G and G1 that no further proceedings could be taken pursuant to the Tribunal's direction is the correct position.ratio¶42
The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's setting aside of the Assistant Commissioner's order is treated as having attained finality, with no further question of remand and reconsideration.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LR) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, disposed of by a single-judge Oral Order of the High Court of Karnataka (S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.) on 17.12.2025. The petitioner, who had purchased agricultural land in Sy. Nos. 87 and 87/1 of Sasaravalli Village, Sagar Taluk (2012), questioned endorsements dated 17.11.2020 and 10.04.2023 (Annexures-G and G1) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sagar Sub-Division. The Assistant Commissioner's earlier order dated 17.08.2015 finding violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 had been set aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1173/2015 (order dated 13.07.2020) with remand for fresh enquiry. Held: since Sections 79-A and 79-B stood omitted by the second amendment dated 13.07.2020, all proceedings under the Act abate; the Tribunal's remand direction abated and its set-aside attained finality; the Assistant Commissioner's endorsement stand was the correct position. The Tahsildar (R-3) was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure-H) and pass orders restoring the petitioner's name in the revenue entries within 3 months.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:53818 WP No. 38052 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 38052 OF 2025 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.B.S.RAGHUPATHY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA SANNAIAH, R/O NO.383, 2^ND G CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, 3^RD STAGE, NEAR FLORENCE HIGH SCHOOL, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB-DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:53818 WP No. 38052 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

3. THE TAHASILAR

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, SAGAR TALUK, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V. SESHU, HCGP)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN ALL REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULED LANDS BY ACCEPTING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03.07.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE R2 DATED 17.11.2020 AND 10.04.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND G1 TO THE WRIT PETITION SINCE SECTIONS 79A AND B OF THE ACT WERE OMITTED BY VIRTUE OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND REFORMS ACT AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

¶27

Petitioner has called in question the correctness

¶28

of the endorsements at Annexures-G and G1 and has

¶29

sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53818 WP No. 38052 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

respondent - Authorities to consider the representation at Annexure-H.

¶33

The facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner is stated to have purchased agricultural land on 30.01.2012 in Sy. Nos. 87 and 87/1 of Sasaravalli Village, Talaguppa Hobli, Sagar Taluk, as regards an extent of 20 guntas out of 4 acres 12 guntas. It is further submitted that on 04.06.2012 the petitioner has purchased agricultural land in Sy. No. 87/1 as regards an extent of 3 acres 26 guntas out of 3 acres 31 guntas. It is further submitted that the revenue entries have been effected in name of the petitioner.

¶34

It is noticed that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order regarding violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 as per the order dated 17.08.2015. It is not in dispute and borne out from the records that the said order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53818 WP No. 38052 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1173/2015. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for holding fresh enquiry. This order was passed on 13.07.2020.

¶38

It is further noticed that the omission of Sections 79-A and 79-B was by second amendment on 13.07.2020. If that were to be so, by virtue of omission of Sections 79-A and 79-B and by virtue of the provisions of the Amendment Act, all proceedings abate. Legal consequence of which would be that the direction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for remand and fresh enquiry could not have been taken to a logical end, as all proceedings under the Land Reforms Act would abate.

¶39

Accordingly, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal must be construed as setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the direction regarding remand is to be construed as a direction which

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53818 WP No. 38052 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

has abated. The Assistant Commissioner in terms of the endorsements at Annexures-G and G1 has taken the same stand that no further proceedings could be taken pursuant to the direction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal which is the correct position.

¶43

Petitioner has made a representation at Annexure-H for effecting revenue entries in the name of the petitioner in light of the order of the Assistant Commissioner having been set aside. In light of the discussion made above, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal insofar as setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner is to be treated to have attained finality with no further question of remand and reconsideration. If that were to be so, order of the Assistant Commissioner having been set aside, the respondent No.3 - Tahsildar is directed to consider the representation at Annexure-H and pass necessary orders for restoration of the petitioner's name in the revenue entries, which would be the legal recourse in light of the

¶44