- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.21321 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA W/O SRI LATE SANJEEVAPPA AGED 65 YEARS R/AT INTORAYANAHALLI VILLAGE NAGALAMATIKE HOBLI PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M K BHASKARAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR TOWN & DISTRICT - 572 101 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 MADHUGIRI TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132 4. THE TAHASIDLAR PAVAGADA TALUK PAVAGADA TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R4 TAHASILDAR, PAVAGADA TALUK, PAVAGADA DATED 25.06.2018 AND 04.10.2018 MARKED AS ANNEXURES`-J AND J1 RESPECTIVELY AND DIRECT THE R2 TO TAKE STEPS TO RESTORE THE PADA LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in Survey No.126/5 measuring 6 acres situated at Balasamudra Village, Pavagada Taluk was granted during the year 1960 in the name of the petitioner’s father-in-law - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 – Sannappa, on an application made by him. The petitioner’s father-in-law was in possession and enjoyment of the said land during his lifetime and the RTC stood in his name. Subsequently, from the year 1974 it is shown as ‘SARKARI PADA’ in the RTCs. Therefore, the original grantee gave several representations to the respondent- authorities for removal of the entry ‘SARKARI PADA’ from the RTC. The petitioner’s father-in-law executed a registered Will dated 21.12.1988 in favour of the petitioner and he died on 07.08.2006. The respondent authorities have not acted upon the representations given by the petitioner and her father-in-law for removal of the entry made in the RTC. However, the respondent-Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsements dated 25.06.2018 and 04.10.2018 at Annexures ‘J’ and ‘J1’ stating that they have not pursued their representations within the stipulated time, in view of the Government Notification No.R.D.28.LGP 2013, Bengaluru dated 23.07.2013. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 3. This Court on an earlier occasion dealt with similar situation where an endorsement was issued by the Tahasildar declining to collect the arrears of land revenue and had passed orders of cancellation of forfeiture (PADA). This Court while analyzing the provisions contained in Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Rules therein, including Rule 119, held in Shivanna Vs. Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 that there is no time limit fixed in Section 163 for collection of arrears of land revenue in the normal circumstances. Having regard to this aspect, this Court has already concluded that the respondent authorities, i.e, the Deputy Commissioner and the delegated authority, i.e., the Tahasildar are duty bound to collect the arrears of land revenue and pass orders of cancellation or forfeiture since it is not disputed that the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the land in question. The provisions are clearly directed towards the other cases where charges are created by orders passed by Courts of law and other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 competent authorities where the parties are in default for payment and the Courts and authorities deem it fit to direct recovery of such debts to be collected as arrears of land revenue. In all other cases, in terms of the amended provision, which came into effect from 01.04.1988. The government has granted relaxation and enabled the revenue authorities to accept the application for cancellation of forfeiture even in cases where the land was sold and purchased on account of the government dues, but which were not disposed of otherwise. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, a plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 163 and the Rules, including Rule 119, makes it clear that in the normal circumstances where there are arrears of land revenue, it is not the intention of the government to forfeit the agricultural lands. On the other hand, the provisions are clearly directed towards the other cases where charges are created by orders passed by Courts of law and other competent authorities where the parties are in default for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 payment and the Courts and authorities deem it fit to direct recovery of such debts to be collected as arrears of land revenue. 5. Consequently, in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 in the case of Shivanna Vs. Deputy Commissioner and others, the writ petition stands disposed of by setting aside the impugned endorsements dated 25.06.2018 and 04.10.2018 at Annexures-‘J and J1’ and collect the arrears of land revenue if any and formally pass an order of cancellation of forfeiture. The Tahsildar shall pass necessary orders intimating the petitioner as to the arrears of land revenue and on payment of the said arrears of land revenue, the Tahsildar shall pass necessary orders for cancellation of the order of the forfeiture passed earlier and remove the word ‘SARKARI PADA’ incorporated in the RTC. The petitioner is also permitted to file necessary application for entering the name of the petitioner and the Tahsildar shall also consider such an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32689 WP No. 21321 of 2021 application and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 6. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL