Dismissed

State of Karnataka v. B H Balakrishna

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026WA/1614/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed against a Single Judge's order directing removal of a 'PADA' entry in the RTC and recording of legal heirs after recovery of small land revenue arrears. The Division Bench condoned a 551-day delay but found no error in the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal condoned; writ appeal dismissed with directions to the Tahsildar to issue demand notice, recover arrears, and record legal heirs in the RTC.

State of Karnataka Vs B H Balakrishna — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2140-DB WA No. 1614 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1614 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

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

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU-572 101

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION TUMAKURU-572 101

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU-572 101

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶18

AND:

¶19

B H BALAKRISHNA S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.255

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:2140-DB WA No. 1614 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

7^TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 040

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.3836/2024 (KLR-RES) AND ETC.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3836/2024 filed by the respondent/petitioner for removal of the entry 'PADA' in the RTC in respect of 2 acres 36 guntas of land in Survey No.55/1 situated at Bhramhasandra Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk.

¶30

The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition after considering the judgment dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19639/2021,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2140-DB WA No. 1614 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

wherein it was held that under the provisions contained in subsection (1) of Section 163, sub-section (i) of Section 87 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, the Tahsildar shall not declare any such occupancy or alienate the land holding to be forfeited to the State Government where the arrears of land revenue due does not exceed Rs.10,000/-.

¶34

Admittedly, the land revenue due in case of the respondent/petitioner is much less than Rs.10,000/-. No notice was issued by the Tahsildar before entering 'PADA' in the RTC in respect of the respondent/petitioner's land. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has directed the Tahsildar to collect the arrears of land revenue from the respondent/petitioner and thereafter enter the name of the legal heirs of Smt. Gowramma, who was the original owner of the land.

¶35

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 551 days. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with the application-I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay, we condone the delay. However, on merit, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:2140-DB WA No. 1614 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

error of law or facts which requires this Court to take a different view than taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶40

The opportunity has already been given to the Tahsildar to collect the land revenue. The respondent/petitioner should pay the land revenue as demanded by the Tahsildar for which, demand notice is to be issued by the Tahsildar and after recovery of the land revenue, the Tahsildar should effect the necessary changes in the RTC to bring on record the legal heirs of late Smt. Gowramma.

¶41

In view of dismissal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of.

¶42

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶43

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶44

BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

State of Karnataka v. B H Balakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. B H Balakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L Bheema Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravindranath K Vs the Union of India

The Regional Manager Vs Sri R Sreenivasulu

K Sheik Ahmed Vs the Tahsildar

Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs K Devaraju

A.S Srinivasan Vs the Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Limited