Karnataka High Court
Sri. S. U. Anandakrishnan vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16663
WP No. 10019 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10019 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. U. ANANDAKRISHNAN
S/O. K. SUBBAIAH
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SRI. S. KIRAN KUMAR
S/O. SRI N. SAMPATH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/O.NO.971/143, 2ND MAIN
4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH
COURT OF
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16663
WP No. 10019 of 2025
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SRI. K.V. GANGADHAR
S/O. VENKATARATHNAMMA
AGED ABOUT YEARS
R/AT HUNDANAR CAMP,
KESARADI POST
GANGAWATHI TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025, NOTICE TO R5
IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET
ASIDE AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 31-12-2024 IN CASE NO.RAP01/2024 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16663
WP No. 10019 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Proceedings were initiated under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of Sy.Nos.91/31 and 91/29 against one K.V. Gangadhar.
2. It was the case of the Tahsildar that K.V. Gangadhar had purchased the property contrary to the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.
3. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an order on 12.05.2008 holding that K.V.Gangadhar had contravened the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and therefore, the lands that he had purchased, namely land bearing Sy.Nos.91/31 and 91/29, totally measuring 04 acres was required to be forfeited to the Government.
4. The petitioner contends that Sy.No.91/31, totally measured 03 acres and only 01 acre had been purchased by K.V.Gangadhar and the remaining 02 acres was purchased by Muninarasamma. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025
5. The petitioner contends that Muninarasamma in turn conveyed the property to the petitioner under the sale deed dated 31.10.2006 and on the basis of this, his name was entered in the revenue records.
6. However, by virtue of the order of forfeiture passed against K.V.Gangadhar, who had purchased only 01 acre in Sy.No.91/31, the Revenue Authorities proceeded to delete the name of the petitioner also from the revenue records and indicated that the extent of 03 acres stood vested in the Government.
7. The petitioner therefore approached the Assistant Commissioner and requested him to rectify the error, but the Assistant Commissioner refused to do so, on the ground that he had himself passed an order against K.V.Gangadhar and the order was given effective to vide M.R. No.84/2007-08.
8. This order of the Assistant Commissioner has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025
9. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court.
10. It is not in dispute that the proceedings for forfeiture was initiated only against K.V.Gangadhar and since K.V.Gangadhar had purchased only 01 acre in Sy.No.91/31, the forfeiture, if any, would be applicable only to the extent of 01 acre.
11. Since admittedly no proceedings have been initiated either against the petitioner or his vendor, the question of deleting either the petitioner's vendor's name or the petitioner's name in the revenue records would not arise.
12. Consequently, the impugned orders refusing to enter the name of the petitioner as per his sale deed dated 31.10.2006 would be improper.
13. Consequently, the impugned orders are quashed and a direction is issued to the Tahsildar to restore the name of the petitioner in respect of 02 acres of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:16663 WP No. 10019 of 2025 land that he purchased under the sale deed dated 31.10.2006.
14. This exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
16. In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 107