- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35257 WP No. 9889 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.9889 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: SHRI B. C. ANIL KUMAR S/O. B. V. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.1299, “CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA” BRINDAVAN LAYOUT, KADUGODI BENGALURU – 560 067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRI K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGAR – 562 159. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA – 561 203. 3. TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI – 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. P. YOGANNA, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LRF: SR (DE) 253/2014-15, DATED 30/11/2018, AT ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE R-2, FORFEITING THE LAND IN OLD SY. NO. 85/6 AND OLD SY. NO. 85/2, (NEW SY. NO. Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35257 WP No. 9889 of 2024 85/8), SITUATED AT VENKATAGIRIKOTE VILLAGE, VIJAYPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 0.25 GUNTAS AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dated 30.11.2018 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out to the discrepancy in the name found in the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It is pointed out that in the first page while describing the respondent it is stated as Sri B.C. Sunil Kumar, son of B.V.Chandrappa, however, in the operative portion it is correctly shown as Sri B.C. Anil Kumar, S/o - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35257 WP No. 9889 of 2024 B.V.Chandrappa, which is the correct name of the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021 remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate points out from the impugned order that notice was indeed issued to the petitioner and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35257 WP No. 9889 of 2024 5. Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any court/authority. 6. This Court had several occasions to consider such cases, where writ petitions are filed long after the provisions contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C were omitted from the statute book in terms of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. It is the consistent opinion of this Court that if at any rate, the Assistant Commissioner, after forfeiting the land has not disposed of the same in accordance with law then the benefit of the saving clause contained in Section 12 of the Amending Act is required to be given to such petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner is therefore, required to ascertain, whether the declared excess lands or forfeited lands still remain with the State Government or has been granted to third parties. If the lands have been granted to third party, then sub-section(1) of Section 12 of the amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35257 WP No. 9889 of 2024 reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner. 7. Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the co- ordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein. 8. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is disposed of. ii) The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35257 WP No. 9889 of 2024 Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020. iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.11.2018, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 26th September 2025, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner. Ordered accordingly. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT:VC