- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4773 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE DODDA LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O BESAGARAHALLI KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571425 THE PETITIOENR HEREIN NOT CLAIMED THE SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL.K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA 571401 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB DIVISION, MANDYA 571401 4. THE TAHSILDAR MADDUR TALUK MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT 571428 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI.V.SHIVA REDDY, AGA) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R-4 DTD. 07.11.2022 AT ANNX-E IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.01.1997 BEARING NO.LND(1)COURT.837.96-97 AT ANNX-C PASSED BY THE R-2 WITHIN A TIME FRAMED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 07.11.2022 in accordance with the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 28.01.1997. 2. The essential dispute between the petitioner and the State is that for non-payment of revenue, an entry has been made in the revenue records as Sarkari Pada i.e., the land is ordered to be forfeited for non- payment of land revenue. Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act provides for forfeiture of occupancy or alienated holding, which reads as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 “163. Forfeiture of occupancy or alienated holding: (1) The Tahsildar may declare the occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which an arrear of land revenue is due, to be forfeited to the State Government, and sell or otherwise dispose of the same under the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 and credit the proceeds, if any, to the defaulter's account: Provided that the Tahsildar shall not declare any such occupancy or alienated holding to be forfeited,- (a) unless previously thereto he shall have issued a proclamation and written notices of the intended declaration in the manner prescribed under Section 168 for effecting sales of immoveable property; and (b) until after the expiration of at least fifteen days from the latest date on which any of the said notices shall have been published as prescribed under Section 168: Provided further that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 87, the Tahsildar shall not declare any such occupancy or alienated holding, to be forfeited to the State Government, where the arrears of land revenue due, does not exceed rupees ten thousand. (2) When any occupancy or alienated holding is declared forfeited under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar may, before such occupancy or alienated holding is sold or otherwise disposed of, cancel the declaration of forfeiture, if the defaulter or any person interested in the occupancy or alienated holding pays the entire arrears of land revenue due and all expenses incurred so far in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 recovery proceedings as may be fixed by the Tahsildar.” 3. As could be seen from the above, the provision empowers the Tahsildar to declare the occupancy or an alienated holding in respect of which there are arrears of land revenue due to the Government to be forfeited to the State Government and it also empowers the Tahsildar to sell or dispose of the said land for the purpose of recovering the arrears of land revenue. This provision thereby fundamentally enables the Tahsildar to take over a land, sell the same only with the intent of recovering the arrears of land revenue. 4. The fact that the proceeds, if any, are collected in excess, they will have to be remitted to the account of the defaulter, would also indicate that the limited right of the Tahsildar is to collect revenue which is due to the Government. Sub-section 2 to Section 163 also makes it clear that the said forfeiture will have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 to be cancelled if the defaulter or any person interested in the occupancy or the alienated holding comes forward to pay the arrears of land revenue due and all the expenses incurred so far for the recovery of the same. 5. Thus, if a defaulter or even any person interested comes forward to pay the arrears of land revenue, the Tahsildar has no other option, but to accept the same. If the intent of the law is to ensure that only the arrears of land revenue are collected, then, obviously, on such revenue being collected, it becomes the obligation of the Tahsildar to undo the forfeiture and, thereby restore the name of the Khatedar in the revenue records. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner has come forward to pay the arrears of land revenue and, as a consequence, the Tahsildar is bound to accept the same and cancel the order of forfeiture. As a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 consequence, he would also have to restore the name, as it stood, as on the date of forfeiture. 7. Learned AAG however submits that the order of the Deputy Commissioner ordering restoration of khata on 28.01.1997 was challenged by one Narasamma in and Narasaiah before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and ultimately the matter ended up before this Court in W.P.No.33064/1997 and W.P.No.6081/2000, whereby this Court allowed the said writ petitions and directed the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter. 8. He therefore submits that apart from the petitioner there are two other claimants namely Narasamma and Narasayya. It is also contended that pursuant to the said orders, an order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 27.12.2003, whereby the Deputy Commissioner has in fact ordered the restoration of the khata as it stood prior to the order - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 of forfeiture and the revenue entries have also been mutated pursuant to the said order. 9. If the petitioner is claiming that the property has been inherited by her, it would be open for her to make an application to establish that she is the wife of Doddalingaiah and thereupon the Tahsildar shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced RTCs from the year 1969-70, which indicates that the name of Doddalingaiah had been entered in the Khatedar’s column. It is also forthcoming from the said RTC that vide M.R.No.46/92-93 (M.R.No.46/93-94), the name of Doddalingaiah was rounded off and an entry was made as Sarkari Beelu as a consequence of the petitioner agreeing to pay the arrears of land revenue. The Tahsildar will have to therefore restore - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 the name of Doddalingaiah in the revenue records and delete the name of Sarkar Beelu. 11. The Tahsildar is accordingly directed to collect the arrears of land revenue along with any expenses incurred for recovery of the said land revenue and then restore the name of Doddalingaiah in the revenue records. 12. It may be pertain to state here that the RTCs that are produced now indicates that Doddalingaiah’s name was in the revenue records when the order of forfeiture and the entry of Sarkari Beelu was made. Since the entry was made vide M.R.No.46/92-93 (M.R.No.46/93-94), notwithstanding the order the Deputy Commissioner, the entries will have to be restored in the name of Doddalingaiah and not as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 13. If any person, including the petitioner, were to claim that their name should be entered in the revenue - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15757 WP No. 4773 of 2025 records, the same shall be considered in accordance with law after issuing notices to all the person concerned. 14. The said exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 15. This petition is accordingly disposed of. 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16