- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 10019 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S. U. ANANDAKRISHNAN S/O. K. SUBBAIAH REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. S. KIRAN KUMAR S/O. SRI N. SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O.NO.971/143, 2ND MAIN 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SRI. K.V. GANGADHAR S/O. VENKATARATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/AT HUNDANAR CAMP, KESARADI POST GANGAWATHI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31-12-2024 IN CASE NO.RAP01/2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. Proceedings were initiated under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) in respect of Sy.Nos.91/31 and 91/29 against one K.V. Gangadhar. 2. It was the case of the Tahsildar that K.V. Gangadhar had purchased the property contrary to the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. 3. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 12.05.2008 holding that K.V.Gangadhar had contravened the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and therefore, the lands that he had purchased, namely land bearing Sy.Nos.91/31 and 91/29, totally measuring 04 acres was required to be forfeited to the Government. 4. The petitioner contends that Sy.No.91/31, totally measured 03 acres and only 01 acre had been purchased by K.V.Gangadhar and the remaining 02 acres was purchased by Muninarasamma. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 5. The petitioner contends that Muninarasamma in turn conveyed the property to the petitioner under the sale deed dated 31.10.2006 and on the basis of this, his name was entered in the revenue records. 6. However, by virtue of the order of forfeiture passed against K.V.Gangadhar, who had purchased only 01 acre in Sy.No.91/31, the Revenue Authorities proceeded to delete the name of the petitioner also from the revenue records and indicated that the extent of 03 acres stood vested in the Government. 7. The petitioner therefore approached the Assistant Commissioner and requested him to rectify the error, but the Assistant Commissioner refused to do so, on the ground that he had himself passed an order against K.V.Gangadhar and the order was given effective to vide M.R. No.84/2007-08. 8. This order of the Assistant Commissioner has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 9. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court. 10. It is not in dispute that the proceedings for forfeiture was initiated only against K.V.Gangadhar and since K.V.Gangadhar had purchased only 01 acre in Sy.No.91/31, the forfeiture, if any, would be applicable only to the extent of 01 acre. 11. Since admittedly no proceedings have been initiated either against the petitioner or his vendor, the question of deleting either the petitioner's vendor's name or the petitioner’s name in the revenue records would not arise. 12. Consequently, the impugned orders refusing to enter the name of the petitioner as per his sale deed dated 31.10.2006 would be improper. 13. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed and a direction is issued to the Tahsildar to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of 02 acres of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 land that he purchased under the sale deed dated 31.10.2006. 14. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 16. In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107