Mr Chennappa Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED NIL, MADE ON THE LETTER DATED 15.01.2025 BY THE R2-TAHSILDHAR VIDE ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO MUTATE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORDS OF RIGHTS OVER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY, ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

¶27

notice for both the respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.2-Tahsildar has made an endorsement on the application filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of pada in respect of 11 acre 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.22 of Hulsoppanahalli Village, Kolala Hobli,

¶29

Koratagere Taluk, stating that the time has lapsed.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:1984 WP No. 38445 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

This Court earlier has dealt with similar

¶34

situations where an endorsement was issued by the Tahasildar declining to collect the arrears of land revenue and had passed orders of cancellation of forfeiture (PADA). This Court, while analyzing the provisions contained in Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Rules therein, including Rule 119, held in W.P.No.19639 of 2021 dated 05.09.2022 that there is no time limit fixed in Section 163 for collection of arrears of land revenue in the normal circumstances. Having noticed the provisions contained in Section 163, this Court has held that second proviso to Section 163 of the Act clearly animates the wisdom of the legislature that in the normal circumstances where there is arrears of land revenue which may not exceed few tens of rupees having regard to the fact that the land revenue which is fixed at a very minimal rate such as Rs.1/-, Rs.2/- etc., annually, it is impossible that arrears of land revenue would exceed Rs.10,000/- as provided in the second proviso. Having regard to this

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1984 WP No. 38445 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

aspect this Court has already concluded that the respondent authorities, i.e, the Deputy Commissioner and the delegated authority, i.e., the Tahasildar are duty bound to collect the arrears of land revenue and pass orders of cancellation or forfeiture since it is not disputed that the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the land in question.

¶38

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of

¶39

with a direction to the Respondent-Tahsildar, Koratagere Taluk, to determine and collect the arrears of land revenue as found in the check-list and formally pass an order of cancellation of forfeiture (SARKARI PADA). The petitioner shall be permitted to pay the arrears of land revenue accordingly within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Tahsildar shall collect the arrears of land revenue accordingly and pass necessary orders of cancellation of forfeiture (SARKARI PADA) as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within

¶40

a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:1984 WP No. 38445 of 2025

¶42