- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.28249 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI K B NAGARAJAIAH S/O LATE BALAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/O KANNASANDRA VILLAGE SOLUR HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127, BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI.YOGESH V. KOTENATH ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 159 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 3. THE TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK MAGADI RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE SIMILAR NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES MORE PARTICULARLY THE R-3 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 31.07.2013, 21.02.2019 AND 22.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C AND D RESPECTIVELY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS FOR CANCELLATION OF FORFEITURE (PHADA) AND ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY NO.22/03 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 9 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KANNASANDRA VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT EXPEDITIOUSLY AND 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 writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents' Authority, more particularly, respondent No.3 - Tahasildar to consider the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 petitioner’s representations dated 31.07.2013, 21.02.2019 and 22.06.2020 as per Annexures-B, C and D respectively and pass appropriate orders. 2. The respondent No.3 - Tahasildar has notified the land bearing Sy. Nos.22/3 measuring 9 guntas as “Sarkari Pada” on the ground that the petitioner has defaulted in paying the revenue. 3. The petitioner claims to be owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No.22/3 measuring 9 guntas situated at Kannasandra Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk. The Revenue Authorities having noticed that there is a default in not paying the revenue assessed by the Authorities have proceeded to notify the petition land as "Sarkari Pada". The petitioner has now submitted detailed representations with an undertaking that he would pay the arrears of revenue. This writ petition is filed alleging that there is inaction on the part of the Revenue Authorities in not considering the petitioner’s request made under the representations. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 4. The matter concerning the removal of the entry "Sarkari Pada" from the RTC was comprehensively addressed by a Co-ordinate Bench in its unreported judgment rendered in SMT. RAJAMMA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (W.P. No.23513/2024, dated 02.09.2024). In its analysis of Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Section 87(i) of the Act read in conjunction with Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 ("the Rules"), the Co-ordinate Bench arrived at significant conclusions regarding the authority of the jurisdictional Tahasildar. 5. The Bench categorically held that the jurisdictional Tahasildar does not have the authority to forfeit lands to the State Government solely on the grounds of arrears of land revenue, unless the legally due arrears exceed the threshold of Rs.10,000/-. Furthermore, the Bench clarified that the provisions of Section 163 of "the Act" and Rule 119 of "the Rules" are not designed to empower the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 authorities to notify lands with pending revenue dues as "Sarkari Pada." Instead, these provisions are intended to create a charge over the land when the owner of agricultural land defaults on the payment of land revenue. 6. Relying on this judgment, this Court is inclined to issue directives to the jurisdictional Tahasildar, emphasizing that the entry of "Sarkari Pada" in the RTC is unwarranted under the circumstances defined by the Act and the Rules. The Co-ordinate Bench emphasized that the primary legislative intent behind the relevant provisions is to secure revenue arrears by creating a charge on the land rather than treating it as forfeited or state-owned merely because of non-payment. Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the judgment are particularly relevant and highlight the judicial reasoning and directives provided by the Co-ordinate Bench. For better clarity and reference, the same are extracted as follows: “8. Be that as it may. The Tahsildhar cannot declare any occupancy or hereditary holdings to be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 forfeited without following the procedure. Further the provisions of Section 163 of the Act, imposes an embargo on the Tahsildar from declaring any occupancy or hereditary holdings to be forfeited to the State Government where the arrears of land revenue due does not exceed Rs.10,000/-. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since petitioners have come forward to pay land revenue arrears due with interest, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where a mandamus lies. The petitioners being original land owners have a legal right to seek deletion of entries indicated in columns 9 and 12 (2). Respondents are equally obligated to consider the petitioners' right vide representation dated 11.07.2013.” 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in an unreported judgment, this is a fit case, where mandamus lies. This Court, therefore, proceeds to pass the following; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.3 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 31.07.2013. 21.02.2019 and 22.06.2020 as per Annexures-B, C and D and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iii) The respondent No.3 – Tahasildar is hereby directed to raise a demand and shall communicate the amount that is liable to be levied on the petitioner. (iv) On such demand raised by respondent No.3 – Tahasildar, the petitioner within the period of two weeks from the date of communication shall deposit the arrears of revenue. If such deposit is made by the petitioner, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:697 WP No. 28249 of 2024 respondent No.3 – Tahasildar shall take appropriate steps to delete the word 'Sarkari Pada' reflected in the RTC, more particularly, in column Nos.9 and 12. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18