IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 8918 OF 2026 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VENKATARAMA BHAT AGE ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O EASHWAR BHAT RESIDING AT NO 6/D EASHWARA NILAYA, 4TH MAIN BALAJI LAYOUT, BANGALORE URBAN - 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS G.P.A HOLDER SRI. NERAJ P. MAURYA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O DR. PRABHU NANDAN MAURYA NO. 513, 4TH 'A' MAIN, O.M.B.R LAYOUT BANASVADI, BENGALURU - 43.

…PETITIONER Digitally signed (BY SRI. UMESH M.N, ADVOCATE)

by JUANITA THEJESWINI AND:

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEKDAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUBAGERE, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION AT DODDABALLAPURA KARNATAKA - 561 203.

3. THE TASHILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN CASE NO. LRF SR (D)

113/08-09 DATED 28.03.2011 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC., 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 High Court Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.L.R.F.SR(D):113/2008-09 dated

28.03.2011 at Annexure-D.

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 High Court Government Pleader 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.

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 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 incl