Disposed

Smt. Devamathe, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/38637/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an order declaring excess land forfeited. The Court remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to consider the petitioner's case in light of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, and ordered the restoration of altered revenue entries.

What did the court decide?

Case remanded to Assistant Commissioner for re-evaluation including consequences of the 2020 Amendment Act; revenue entries ordered restored; petitioner to appear without further notice.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9361 WP No. 38637 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 38637 OF 2025 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. DEVAMATHE, W/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HEBBALAKOPPALU VILLAGE, HEBBALU POST AND HOBLI, K.R NAGARA HOBLI, K R NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU-571602.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SANDESH T.B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, by JUANITA THEJESWINI REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, COURT OF VIDHANAN SOUDHA KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNASURU SUB DIVISION, HUNASURU MYSURU DISTRICT-571105.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, K.R NAGARA KR NAGARA TALUK

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9361 WP No. 38637 of 2025

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MYSURU DISTRICT-571602.

¶21

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN L.R.F. 135/14-15 DTD. 24.10.2016 BY THE R-2 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-D.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY, STAYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN L.R.F.135/14-15 DTD. 24.10.2016 BY THE R-2 UNDER ANNX-D WHICH IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 the respondents.

¶28

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the 2^nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner in LRF:135/14-15 in terms of Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:9361 WP No. 38637 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that 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.

¶33

Learned Additional Government Advocate 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.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:9361 WP No. 38637 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

This Court had several occasions to consider

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:9361 WP No. 38637 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶44

Having considered the submission of the learned

¶45

Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate 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.

¶46

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶49

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 79A and 79B of the Karnataka

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:9361 WP No. 38637 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Land Reforms Act, 1961 in Karnataka (Second Amendment) Act No.56 of 2020.

¶53

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 24.10.2016, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶54

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 2^nd March 2026 , without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶55

Ordered accordingly.

¶56

Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶57

permitted to file his memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶58

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶59

JT/CT: JL

Smt. Devamathe, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Devamathe, 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

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H N Baratheesh Vs the Special Assistant Commissioner

Sri L G Ramesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Manjegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Ramakrishnappa S Vs the Joint Director of Land Records