Karnataka High Court
Smt Lalithamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 19 November, 2025
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47832
WP No. 31426 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 31426 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LALITHAMMA
W/O LATE.V. SHAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR NIJALINGAPPA SCHOOL,
VIDYANAGAR,
HOSADURGA TOWN AND TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY.C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHITRADURGA TOWN AND DISTRICT-577 501.
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
Location: HIGH CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION,
COURT OF CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
KARNATAKA
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 527
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM RESPONDENTS.A. ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47832
WP No. 31426 of 2025
HC-KAR
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.L.R.M.HSD.CR-01/2025-26
DTD. 03-09-2025 AS PER VIDE ANNEXURE-P AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner has sought for setting aside the endorsement at Annexure-P dated 03.09.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the revenue entries indicate name of the Government in column 9 as well as in column 12(2) and they have come to know that some proceedings were conducted before the Assistant Commissioner for violation of Section 79A and 79B and in light of the same such entry has been made.
3. Petitioner submits that despite efforts he was not able to procure copy of the order. Reliance is placed on the endorsement at Annexures- B and C, which would indicate that despite petitioner having sought orders of the Assistant -3- NC: 2025:KHC:47832 WP No. 31426 of 2025 HC-KAR Commissioner, the respondent authorities have stated that they have no records and accordingly are unable to furnish copy.
4. Apparently, it becomes clear that the authorities had appeared to have initiated proceedings under Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and had passed order, pursuant to which revenue entries have been changed in the name of Government. However, as on date, there are no records available as regard such order of the Assistant Commissioner.
5. Perused the order passed in R. RAGHU VS. G. M. KRISHNA AND ANOTHER reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1824. Para 2.20 reads as follows.
"2.20. Notably, on 30.12.2020, Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C of the 1961 Act were retrospectively repealed with effect from 01.03.1974."
6. Para 12 reads as follows;
"12. The respondent's claim in his appeal for setting aside the auction proceedings and the sale certificate has been rightly rejected by the High Court in view of his conduct. Firstly, he failed to take any steps to challenge the sale for more than two years. In any case, the bar contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the 1961 Act stood repealed in 2020 with retrospective -4- NC: 2025:KHC:47832 WP No. 31426 of 2025 HC-KAR effect from 01.03.1974, and therefore the objection relating to misrepresentation by the appellant would lose its significance. Further, the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Rule 47 CPC, wherein all such objections had been raised as far back as 2002, was rejected up to this Court. Hence, commencing a second round of objections on the pretext that the appellant had been shifting his stand as to who is the purchaser which is an issue already raised in the earlier objections, could not have been permitted and is clearly barred in law."
7. Taking note of the observation of omission of Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 would have retrospective effect from 01.03.1974 and in the peculiar facts where no purpose would be served of remitting the matter for fresh consideration. In light of non-availability of order of the Assistant Commissioner, following directions can be passed.
(i) Entry of Government in column 9 and in column 12(2) insofar as RTC of Sy.No.322 of Kanguvalli Village, Hosdurga Taluk to be deleted.
(ii) It is further declared that the order of Assistant Commissioner would have no force of law.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47832 WP No. 31426 of 2025 HC-KAR Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Consequently, authorities to verify and effect mutation as it stood prior to the change to the name of the Government.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42