Disposed

Ajithkumar a v. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/22417/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought removal of a 'Sarkari Pada' forfeiture entry and restoration of names in the RTC for granted land. Following Shivanna v. Deputy Commissioner, the court disposed of the writ petition directing the Tahsildar to verify the grant, collect arrears of land revenue, remove the forfeiture, and enter legal heirs' names.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to verify the grant, communicate arrears, remove forfeiture entry on payment of arrears, and enter legal heirs' names in RTC within two months.

Ajithkumar a v Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8434 WP No. 22417 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 22417 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

AJITHKUMAR A V S/O LATE VEERABHADREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶10

DEVARAJ A D S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE R/O OLD ALDUR, ALDUR HOBLI, CHIKMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577111

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH D C., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKMAGALURU-577101.

¶17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB DIVISION CHIKMAGALURU-577101.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR CHIKMAGALUR TALUK CHIKMAGALURU-577101.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:8434 WP No. 22417 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT ALDUR CIRCLE, ALDUR HOBLI CHIKMAGALURU TALUK-577101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING COMP. NO. 394865 FILE NO. TAHCKM-ADMINORRT/563/2024 DTD 23.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS VIDE ANNEXURE-F DTD 14.01.2024, ANNEXURE-G DTD 20.01.2024, ANNEXURE-H DTD 22.01.2024, ANNEXURE-J DTD 22.01.2024 AND ANNEXURE-N DTD 10.06.2024 AND ANNEXURE-O DTD 28.06.2024 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the land measuring 01 acre and 8 guntas in Sy.No.607/P situated at Aldur Village and Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, which was granted in favour of late Kumar Lingegowda, in the year 1946-47 and his name was entered in the revenue records. However, somewhere in the year 199697 his name was not continued in the RTC extracts and it

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8434 WP No. 22417 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

is shown as 'SARKARI PADA' and forfeiture of the lands

¶33

were done pursuant to the khathedars failing to pay the land revenue. Therefore, the petitioners gave several representations to the respondent authorities for removal of the entry of ‘SARKARI PADA' and to enter the name of the petitioners, in the RTC.

¶34

This Court, in the case of Shivanna Vs.

¶35

Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 has held that having regard to Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, that in normal circumstances where there are arrears of land revenue, it is not the intention of the Government to forfeit agricultural lands. 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

¶36

and the Courts and authorities deem it fit to direct recovery of such debts to be collected as arrears of land

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:8434 WP No. 22417 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

revenue. In all other cases, in terms of the amended provision, which came into effect from 01.04.1988, the Government has granted relaxation and enabled 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.

¶41

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Chikkamagalur Taluk, to look into the grant made in favour of late Sri Kumar Lingegowda in the year 1946-47. If it is found that grant was made in his favour, then the Tahsildar shall verify the grant register and check all relevant records to satisfy himself of the same. Thereafter, he shall inform the petitioners of the arrears of land revenue within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners are called upon to pay the arrears of land revenue, they shall pay the same and after payment of the arrears of land

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8434 WP No. 22417 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

revenue, the forfeiture clause shall be removed and the name of late Sri Kumar Lingegowda, shall be entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, the Tahsildar shall look into the aspect of the legal heirs of late Sri Kumar Lingegowda, who was the original grantee and if it is so, issue notice to all concerned and after he has satisfied himself, he shall proceed to enter the names of the petitioners and any other legal heirs, as the case may be, in respect of the land in Sy.No.607/P measuring 1 acre 08 guntas, situated at Aldur Village and Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk, in column No.9 of the RTC within a period of two months from the date of payment of the

¶45

arrears of land revenue, in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶47

JT/CT: JL

Ajithkumar a v. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajithkumar a v. Vs the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Tolachamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bailappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Shashank Infra Project Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy, Vs the State of Karnataka

Thayamma Vs the Tahasildar

Sri P Narayana Reddy Vs the Tahsildar