- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 49106 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYAMMA W/O BASAVEGOWDA 2. N MAGARAJU S/O BASAVEGOWDA 3. BASAVEGOWDA S/O BASAVEGOWDA 4. JAYALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI 5. M J MANJUNATH, S/O JAYEGOWDA NO 312, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 'H' BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR MYSORE - 23. (BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS' IS ATTENDING AS G.P.A HOLDERS) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MUDDARANGAPPA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 1 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION MYSORE 4. TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK MYSORE - 570001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K MANJUNATH, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTILE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.RRT.BEELU.229/12-13 DATED 07.05.2015 AS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-4, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned endorsement No.RRT.beelu.229/2012-13 dated 07.05.2015 evidenced at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.4- Tahasildar, wherein he has declined to mutate petitioner's name in terms of sale deed obtained by petitioner's grand father on 30.05.1963. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records. 3. This Court has also given anxious consideration to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of KARNATAKA RAJYA RAITHA SANGHA, HIRIYUR BRANCH V. STATE OF KARNATAKA1 relating to the government's right to recover arrears of revenue and its authority to forfeit the land on the ground that there is default in payment of revenue. 4. The subject matter of the petition is agricultural land bearing survey No.*51/3 totally measuring 1 acre 27 guntas. Record reveals that petition land was originally owned by one Ammanni W/o Lingegowda. After her demise, the property was inherited by her husband namely Lingegowda in 1931-32. However, this land was subjected to recovery of arrears of revenue and has resulted in passing the mutation in 1931-32. However, in 1933, 1 LAWS(KAR)-2009-11-47[W.P.6091/2006 DD 2.11.2009] * corrected vide chamber order dated 21.02.2025 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 the property held by Ammanni was restored vide order dated 12.12.1939. 5. The petitioners, who are tracing their rights through their grandfather namely Basavegowda, claimed that in terms of 1963 sale deed, katha ought to have been changed in the name of Basavegowda. However, RTC pertaining to petition land is continued to reflect as 'Sarkari Beelu' indicating that land is forfeited on account of non-payment of revenue arrears. Before introduction of computerized RTC, original owner by name Ammanni was restored somewhere in 1986 and continued till 2001. But, on account of introduction of computerized RTC, the name of original owner Ammannai was deleted. In response to the petitioners' repeated representations, respondent No.4 - Tahasildar has issued impugned endorsement dated 07.05.2015 thereby declining to mutate the petitioner's name, though petitioners are tracing their rights through the registered sale deed executed by Ammanni's husband Lingegowda. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 6. Though the State claimed that statement of objection was filed, on verification, this Court has noticed that no such statement of objection is filed. The petitioners' counsel claim that copy of statement of objection is not served on the petitioners' counsel. 7. Be that as it may, this Court, on closer examination of records and crucial documents, would come to the aid of the petitioners in the case on hand. Firstly, the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, which is evidenced at Annexure-A1 and the same reads as under: ತಹೕಾರವರ ಾಾ ಲಯ, ೖಸೂರು ಾಲೂಕು, ೖಸೂರು R.R.T(J)P.R /17-18 ಾಂಕ :2 18-07- 2017 ಂಬರಹ ೖಸೂರು ಾಲೂಕು, ಜಯಪರ ೋಬ", ೆಂಚಲಗೂಡು &ಾ'ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.51/3 ರ +ೕಳ- ಎಂದು /ೂೕ01ದ ಾಂಕ ಾಗೂ ಆ3ೇಶದ ದೃ6ೕಕೃತ 3ಾಖಾ8 ೋ9 ಮನ: ಸ;1ರುಾ<=ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಬಂದ ಆ? 3ಾರರು ಾಜ=ಾ@ ಆಆ (5&6) ದೃ6ೕಕೃತ ಪ'8 ಾಜರುಪ61ದು ಸದ9 3ಾಖಾ8 ಪ9ೕ;ಸಾ@ ಸ.ನಂ.51/3 ರ; 1-27 ಎಕ=ೆ ಅಮBCD ೋಂ ;ಂ&ೇ&ೌಡ =ೆFೊGೕ ಎಂದು 3ಾಖಾ@ರುತ<3ೆ. ಆದ=ೆ ಆ3ೇಶ ಸಂHೆI ಮತು< ಾಂಕ 3ಾಖಾ@ರುವಲ ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನುJ 8"ಯಪ61 KಮB ಮನ:ಯನುJ :ೇ&ೊ"13ೆ ಎಂದು 8"ಯುವದು. ತಹೕಾ ೖಸೂರು ಾಲೂಕು &ೇ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 +.ಾಗ=ಾಜು +M ೇ ಬಸNೇ&ೌಡ 6.Fಾಲುಂ6 &ಾ'ಮ ಜಯಪರ ೋಬ" ೖಸೂರು ಾಲೂಕು. 8. Upon a thorough examination of the records of rights, it is evident that the Revenue Authorities had officially restored the subject lands to Ammanni during her lifetime through an endorsement dated 12.12.1939. This restoration was carried out under the proceedings referred to as NRC No.672/39. Despite this clear endorsement, Respondent No.4 – the Tahsildar, has arrived at a contrary conclusion, stating that the land stood vested with the government on account of its prior forfeiture due to default in revenue payment by the original owner. Based on this reasoning, the Tahsildar has held that the petitioner’s name cannot be mutated in the revenue records concerning the petition land, solely on the basis of the sale deed executed on 30.05.1963. This conclusion disregards the fact that the Revenue Authorities had already recognized Ammanni’s ownership and had formally - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 restored the land in her favor, thereby undermining the validity of the subsequent transactions arising from her legal ownership. 9. Before this Court proceeds further would like to place reliance on the Division Bench judgment referred in the KARNATAKA RAJYA RAITHA SANGHA, HIRIYUR BRANCH (cited supra), which is relied on by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23513/2024 and the paragraph No.5 is relevant portion is culled out, which reads as under: 5. The Division Bench of this Court in Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha Hiriyur Branch .vs. State of Karnataka while examining the power of State in forfeiting the lands where owners have failed to pay land revenue has held at Paras 5.1 to 5.3 as under: "(5) 5.1 It is settled law that the distraint forfeiture order can be made only to the extent of land revenue arrears due and if the petitioners come forward to pay the said land revenue arrears, their possession has to be restored. The said proposition is supported by the following decisions of this Court: (i) Nagappa Gowda v.Gurupadappa (AIR 1954 Mysore 39); and (ii) Zaheera Banu Kareem v Gomathi Bai G. Kamath (1996 (5) Kar LJ 354). 5.2 In Nagappa Gowda v. Gurupadappa (AIR 1954 Mysore 39), this Court has observed thus: "A mere forfeiture of land followed by the restoration to the defaulting "holder" does not wipe out all the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 earlier rights and equities that may be subsisting as between private parties." 5.3 In Zaheera Banu Kareem v. Gomathi Bai G. Kamath (1996 (5) Kar LJ 354), the Division Bench of this Court has held thus: "In case of restoration of forfeited land to defaulter on his payment of arrears of land revenue and cost due from him, those charges, encumbrances, etc. subsisting at time of forfeiture stand revived-Restoration is not fresh grant, it reverts back to original position." 10. Before the State exercises its power of forfeiture over any land, it is imperative that the process adheres strictly to the procedural safeguards established under the relevant laws. The Tahasildar or the Competent Authority under the applicable statute must first formally declare the lands in question as forfeited. However, such a declaration cannot be made arbitrarily or without due process. A specific legal procedure must be followed before any forfeiture can take effect. This procedure mandates that the intended declaration of forfeiture be preceded by a proper proclamation and due notice to the concerned parties, ensuring that affected landowners are made aware of the impending action. Simply recording an illegality in mutation records does not constitute a valid forfeiture. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 State cannot assume ownership or control over Patta Land merely on the ground that revenue arrears remain unpaid. For forfeiture to take place legally, there must be a clear, intentional, and properly notified proclamation of forfeiture. A mere entry in the revenue records or mutation of the land in government records does not by itself lead to an automatic vesting of ownership in the State. Thus, any claim by the State over such private Patta Land without following the prescribed legal procedure would be untenable and without legal justification. 11. In the present case, the petitioners' claim over the land is even stronger in light of historical records that clearly indicate the land was restored to its original owner long before any purported forfeiture claim by the State. A crucial mutation entry, dating back to the year 1939, explicitly records that the land was restored in favor of the original owner, Ammanni. This fact is evidenced by the document marked as Annexure-D1, which clearly reflects - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 the ownership rights of the original landholder. Furthermore, the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, as evidenced in Annexure-A1, further reinforces the legal standing of the petitioners. The cumulative effect of these endorsements referred to earlier, combined with the documentary evidence of the mutation entry and the official endorsement of the Tahasildar, makes it abundantly clear that the land in question continues to remain classified as private Patta Land. Therefore, any claim by the State to assert ownership over the said land is legally unsustainable. In view of these facts, this Court finds that the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.4, the Tahasildar, as per Annexure-A, is not legally tenable and cannot be upheld. 12. For the forgoing reason, this Court proceeds to pass the following :- ORDER I. Writ petition is allowed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:3756 WP No. 49106 of 2017 II. The impugned endorsement passed by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar dated 07.05.2015 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed and set-aside. III. Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar is directed to take cognizance of sale deed 30.05.1963 obtained by the petitioner's grandfather and shall pass appropriate order and ensure that the petitioners' name is mutate in the RTC pertaining to petition land. IV. The exercise shall be accomplished within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NMS