IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 29059 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A UDDANDAHALLI VILLAGE, DHONENAHALLI DHAKALE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562130.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESHA P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATHISH D. C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, JUANITA THEJESWINI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Location: HIGH M.S. BUILDINGS, COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

4. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

…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 THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO RESTORE PADA BY MUTATING THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 29 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.27/5 OF DHONENAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DTD.

21.08.2014 VIDE ANNX-D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of land in survey No.27/5, measuring 29 Guntas, situated at Dhonenahalli village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. His grievance is that in Column No.9 of the Record of Rights it is shown as "PADA" (forfeited land) during the year 1990-91. It is further stated that the petitioner has made a representation at Annexure-D dated 21.08.2014 to the respondent-Tahsildar seeking cancellation of the entry `PADA' in Column No.9, but no action has been considered till date. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the said representation.

3. This Court on an earlier occasion had dealt with a situation where the Tahsildar declined to collect the arrears of land revenue and had passed orders of cancellation of forfeiture (PADA). This Court, in the case of Shivanna Vs. Deputy Commissioner in W.P.No.19639/2021 dated 05.09.2022 has held that having regard to Section 163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, that in normal circumstances where there are arrears of land revenue, it is not the intention of the Government to forfeit agricultural lands. 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 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. 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 petitioners therein continue to be in occupation of the land in question.

4. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of while directing the respondent-Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, to collect the arrears of land revenue, and formally pass an order of cancellation of forf