- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.37316 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: BHADREGOWDA S/O AJJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O KANIVE DASARAHALLI, LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK-577168. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDAR CHIKMAGALUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR CITY-577101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR CITY-577101. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKMAGALUR - 577101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA ) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE - E DATED 25.5.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 TO GRANT RESTITUTION OF THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN THE INDEX OF LAND AND RECORD OF RIGHTS TO AN EXTENT OF 7 ACRES IN SY.NO.61/1 (SY.NO.61 OLD) OF DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, MOREFULLY DESCRIBED IN TEH SCHEDULE ENTERING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-E wherein respondent No.1/Tahsildar contrary to the directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order declining to restore petitioner's name to the petition land which was originally granted to petitioner's father in 1933- 34. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petition land totally measures 29.11 acres excluding kharab of 2.01 acres. The said land was forfeited by the State for non-payment of land revenue and was classified as Sarkari Beelu. The State further diverted a portion of the land by granting to others and reserving for graveyards of different community. However, the extent of land measuring 9 acres continued to be in possession of the petitioner's family. Therefore, petitioner asserts that 9 acres is in exclusive possession of the petitioner's family. 3. Petitioner assert that the State by amending Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (for short "Rules")by virtue of notification dated 24.3.1990 with retrospective effect coming into force on 1.4.1998 notified to restore the lands to the original owners and consequently, the notification also indicated that the original owners names need to be reinstated in the revenue records subject to compliance of amended provisions of Rule 119 of the Rules. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 4. Pursuant to the issuance of a Government notification, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, the petitioner submitted an application seeking re-grant of the land in question, as evidenced by Annexure-B. Along with this application, the petitioner also requested the restoration of his name in the record of rights. However, respondent No.1, the Tahsildar, vide order dated January 3, 2013, rejected the petitioner’s request on the ground that the subject land had been reserved for Dasarahalli village in accordance with Circular No. TR354/60-61 dated November 24, 1960. 5. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, challenging the decision of the Tahsildar. However, the Assistant Commissioner, after considering the appeal, proceeded to dismiss it, thereby affirming the order passed by the Tahsildar. Not satisfied with this decision, the petitioner exercised his right to file a second appeal under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 Revenue Act before respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, which was registered as R.A.No.32/2014- 15. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, upon conducting a thorough examination of the records, arrived at a categorical finding that the land in Survey No.61, which was the subject of the petitioner’s claim, was not included in the category of lands that had been reserved for restoring Dasarahalli village as per the provisions of the circular dated November 24, 1960. In view of this clear finding, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the petitioner’s second appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner directed respondent No.1, the Tahsildar, to prepare and submit a report in terms of Annexure-A through respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, for further necessary action. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.1/Tahsildar - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 has issued this impugned endorsement indicating that the application tendered by the petitioner admittedly being at a belated stage cannot be entertained and accordingly, the impugned endorsement is issued, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 8. It is not in dispute that petitioner's father was granted in all 29.11 acres in Survey No.61 situated at Dasarahalli Village. The grant order is of the year 1933-34. Petitioner's family has lost this land pursuant to the action of the Government in forfeiting the land on the premise that the petitioner's ancestors were guilty of not paying the revenue in time. This action is taken by the State way back in 1936. However, petitioner still asserts that he is in possession of 7 acres. petitioner also claims that his brother's application seeking regrant is considered which is evidenced at Annexure-J. 9. Be that as it may, respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner has partially allowed the second appeal filed by the petitioner. The operative portion reads as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 "-: ಆೇಶ :- ೕಲನ ಯನು ಪರಸೆ. ಉಪ ಾಾಾ, ಕಮಗಳ ರು ಇವರ ನಂ. ಆ$.ಎ 06/13-14 &'ಾಂಕ: 09.07.2014ರ ಆೇಶ (ಾಗೂ ತಹೕ,ಾ-$, ಕಮಗಳ ರು ಇವರ ನಂ .ಾ ಪ /ಾ0 64/11-12 &'ಾಂಕ: 03.01:2013ರ 1ಂಬರಹವನು ತ34(ಾ5 ಕಮಗಳ ರು 6ಾಲೂ7ಕು ಲಾ8 (ೋಬ3 ಾಸರಹ34 ಾ9ಮದ ಸ ನಂ 61/1ರ ಜ<ೕನನು .ಾ6ೆ ಪನ$/ಾ=ಪ'ೆ >ಾಡಲು ೕಲನ ಾರರು ಸ@7ರುವ ಅBCಯ ಬೆD ೕ,ೆ ಗಮEಸ,ಾದ ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಅನುಸ Eಯಮ ಪ9ಾರ ಪ9/ಾFವ'ೆ ತGಾ ಉಪ ಾಾಾಯವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಈ ಕIೇೆ ಸ@7ಸಲು ತಹೕ,ಾ-$, ಕಮಗಳ ರು ಇವೆ EೇCJೆ." 10. Despite the clear directions issued by respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.1 has proceeded to reject the petitioner’s application for the restoration of the forfeited land. The rejection is solely based on the ground that the application was not filed within the stipulated period of three years from the date of forfeiture, as prescribed under Rule 119 of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 applicable Rules. However, a thorough examination of the records reveals that the petitioner’s brother had submitted a similar application, which was duly entertained and considered by the competent authority. This disparity in treatment raises concerns of inconsistency and discrimination, as the petitioner is entitled to equal treatment under the law. 11. It is pertinent to note that Rule 119 was amended with effect from April 1, 1998, making it mandatory for applications seeking restoration of forfeited land to be filed within three years. However, the petitioner’s learned counsel has rightly drawn attention to a crucial notification issued by respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, on January 4, 2012. This notification extended the time period for seeking restoration, thereby potentially altering the rigid application of Rule 119 in the present case. Given the existence of this notification, it becomes imperative for respondent No.1, the Tahsildar, to conduct a detailed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 inquiry to ascertain its applicability to the petitioner’s case. A mere mechanical rejection of the application, without considering the impact of the extended timeline under the notification, would be legally unsustainable. 12. Thus, respondent No.1 is required to undertake a thorough examination of the matter, determine whether the notification dated January 4, 2012, is applicable to the petitioner’s claim, and pass an appropriate reasoned order accordingly. In light of these considerations, the impugned order rejecting the application suffers from legal infirmity and is therefore liable to be set aside. 13. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2558 WP No. 37316 of 2016 (iii) Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to reconsider the petitioner's application strictly aligning to the mandate provided under Rule 119(1) of the Rules and shall also take cognizance of the notification evidenced at Annexure-A and thereafter, proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (iv) This exercise shall be accomplished within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47