Remanded

Smt. Padma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026WP/34964/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a writ petition filed to quash an order of forfeiture passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice. The High Court of Karnataka, relying on a coordinate bench decision, remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing, noting the facts were similar to the cited precedent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after notice. Revenue entries were to be restored if altered. Petitioner fixed to appea

Smt. Padma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6937 WP No. 34964 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 34964 OF 2025 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SMT. PADMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS D/O MUNIYAPPA R/AT NO.566, A.M.S LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER BSNL EMPLOYEES WELFARE HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.19 (OLD NO.32), 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT S.SUBRAMANI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. UMESH M.N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:6937 WP No. 34964 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA,

¶18

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO. LRF(DH)SR.212/2014-15 DATED 30.11.2018 VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

¶25

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.L.R.F.(DH)SR:212/2014-15 dated 30.11.2018 at Annexure-E.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:6937 WP No. 34964 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021 remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader points 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.

¶32

Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any court/authority.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:6937 WP No. 34964 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

This Court had several occasions to consider

¶37

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. 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

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:6937 WP No. 34964 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶42

Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶43

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶44

following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

ii) The matter is remanded 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 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6937 WP No. 34964 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.11.2018, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶51

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 25.02.2026 , without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶52

Ordered accordingly.

¶53

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶54

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶55

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt. Padma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Padma v. the State of Karnataka

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 B C Subbarao, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sushma B N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Puttaswamy Gowda, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraj Vs the Tahsildhar

Smt Sreya Anuj Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka