- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 533 OF 2024 IN WA No. 1307/2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGLAURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 127. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, ARAKALGUDU TALUK, ARAKALGUDU, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 102. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, GOVT. ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 AND: SRI K N MALLIKARJUNAIAH, S/O PANDIT NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT KOLANGI, ABBURU, MALLIPATTANA HOBLI, ARAKALGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K C SHANTA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) CALL FOR RECORDS b) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 IN WP No. 22645/2023 (KLR- RES) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN CCC NO. 533/2024 BETWEEN: SRI K N MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O. PANDIT NANJAPPA, R/O. KOLANGI ABBUR MALLIPATTANA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 102. ...COMPLAINANT (BY SRI SHANTAKUMAR K C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI BASAVA REDDAPPA RONALD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 THE TAHSILDAR, ARAKALAGUDU, HASSAN-573 102. ...ACCUSED (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR NON IMPLEMENTATION AND DISOBEYANCE OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT PASSED IN W.P.NO.22645/2023 (KLR-RES) DATED 07.11.2023. THIS APPEAL AND PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of application, IA No.1/2024 in W.A.No.1307/2024 is allowed. Delay of 247 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants (State) has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 07.11.2023 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22645/2023(KLR- RES). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 3. The Respondent [Writ Petitioner] had filed the said petition, impugning an endorsement dated 19.06.2023 issued by respondent No.4 [Tahasildar, Arakalgudu Taluk, Hassan District], whereby, the respondent's application for restoring his name in the land records in respect of the subject land, was rejected. The controversy relates to the land measuring 04 acres 31 guntas comprised in Sy.No.39, located at Kolangi village, Mallipattana Hobli, Arakalgudu Taluk, Hassan District [subject land]. The subject land is owned by one Mulemane Nanjappa, son of Puttegowda. It is the appellant's case that, Mulemane Nanjappa had failed to pay the revenue to the State. Consequently, the State had entered the word "Beelu" in respect of the subject land, in the revenue records as on 18.06.1933. The land records continued to reflect the subject land as "Beelu" from the year 1971 to the year 2000. Some time after the year 2000, the name of Mulemane Nanjappa was also deleted from the revenue records. 4. On 15.05.2000, the respondent approached the Tahasildar with an application to remove the word "Beelu". He claimed that he was the adopted son of Mulemane Nanjappa and that he had inherited the subject land. The representations made by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 respondent were not considered. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.12226/2022, which was allowed by this Court by an order dated 14.07.2022. The State Authorities were directed to consider the respondent's representations. However, the said order was not complied with. Therefore, respondent has filed the contempt petition being CCC (Civil) No.475/2023. 5. It is the appellant's case that a brief relaxation was granted during the period from 07.12.2012 to 06.09.2014. During this period any person aggrieved by such entries could make an application under Rule 119 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. However, respondent had not made any representation within the said period. Therefore, respondent’s application could not be considered at a belated stage. 6. The respondent made yet another application on 07.01.2022, inter alia, praying that the word "Beelu" be removed from the description of the subject land, from the land records and the same be replaced by the name of respondent. The said representation was rejected by the impugned endorsement. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 7. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to refer to Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The same is set out below: "119. Restoration of forfeited occupancy or alienated holding on payment of the arrear due :- (1) The Deputy Commissioner may restore any forfeited occupancy or alienated holding which has been purchased on account of the Government and which has not been disposed of otherwise within three years from the date of forfeiture on payment of the arrear in respect of which the forfeiture was incurred together with the amount of land revenue in respect of the holding from the date of forfeiture to the date of restoration and the expenses incurred so far in the recovery and further proceedings as may be forced by the Deputy Commissioner. (2) During a period of not more than [Twenty one months from 7.12.2012 to 6.9.2014], the Deputy Commissioner may, notwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1), restore any forfeited occupancy or alienated holding which has been purchased on account of the Government dues and which has not been disposed of otherwise, to the person who has not been dispossessed of such occupancy or holding immediately before such commencement, on payment of the arrears in respect of which the forfeiture was incurred together with the amount of land revenue in respect of the holding from the date of forfeiture to the date of restoration and the expenses incurred so far in the recovery and further proceedings as may be fixed by the Deputy Commissioner.] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 Provided that the provisions of this sub -rule shall not apply in respect of alienate pad (Beelu) land forfeited by Government." 8. A plain reading of the said Rule indicates that the same concerns restoration of forfeited occupancy or alienated holding. In terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 119, a window of 21 (Twenty One) months from 07.12.2012 to 06.09.2014, was available for an applicant for making an application for restoring forfeited occupancy or alienated holding. However, in the present case, there is no material to establish that the subject land had been forfeited. Therefore, the contention that an application ought to have been made within the time prescribed under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 119 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, is unmerited. 9. The learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the appellants' contention that there is no material to establish that the subject land had been forfeited by the State Government. Concededly, no order of forfeiture is available on record. 10. The expression of the word "Beelu" means that "the land is not cultivated". The said word does not indicate that the subject land was forfeited for failure to pay arrears of land revenue. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 11. However, there is merit in the appellants counsel's contention that no direction for entering the name of respondent could be given, as his right had not been considered or established. Thus, entries in the land records were required to be restored in the name of the original owner, that is, Shri Mulemane Nanjappa, Son of Puttegowda. We, accordingly, modify the impugned order to the aforesaid extent. 12. We, however, clarify this would not preclude the respondent for taking steps to establish his right in respect of the subject land. 13. In view of the above, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 14. In sofar as CCC No.533/2024 is concerned, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the relevant entries would be restored in the land records within a period of eight weeks from today. 15. In view of the same, the Contempt petition is disposed of, with liberty to the complainant to file afresh, if a cause so arises. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33435-DB WA No. 1307 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 533 of 2024 16. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39