Karnataka High Court
Sri. Harish. S vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 October, 2023
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37231
WP No. 19684 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 19684 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. HARISH. S
S/O. LATE SHANKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 87, 8TH BLOCK,
KSRTC LAYOUT,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by MANDYA-571 401.
VIJAYA P
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
PANDAVAPURA,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUKA,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 431.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37231
WP No. 19684 of 2023
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO DECLARE THE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER CHAPTER XIV (SECTION 161
TO 163) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 AND
THEREBY ENTRY MADE IN THE REVENUE RECORDS AS
"SARKARI BEELU" IS VOID AB-INITIO AND TO RESTORE THE
SAID ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS WHO ARE
THE ORIGINAL LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE M R SUBBRAYARU BY
DELETING THE ENTRY OF "SARKARI BEELU" IN THE REVENUE
RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY. NO. 98
MEASURING 9 ACRES 29 GUNTAS OF VADDARAGUDI VILLAGE,
AKKIHEBBAL HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK AND ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to declare that the proceedings initiated under Chapter XIV (Sections 161 to
163) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, whereby the entry made in revenue records as "Sarkari Beelu" as void ab-initio and to restore the entries in the name of petitioner who is the original legal heir of Late M R Subbrayaru, by deleting the entry of "Sarkari Beelu", with respect to land bearing Sy. No. 98 measuring 9 acres 29 guntas of Vaddaragudi Village, Akkihebbal Hobli, K. R. Pete Taluk. Alternatively, petitioner has sought for a direction -3- NC: 2023:KHC:37231 WP No. 19684 of 2023 to the respondents to cancel the declaration in terms of the order passed in the case of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha vs. State of Karnataka - (2010) 1 AIR (Kar) (R) 700, by collecting the entire arrears of land revenue and all expenses incurred insofar as recovery proceedings as may be fixed by respondent No.3 with respect to the said land.
2. Perused Column No. 9 of the RTC for the year 1983-84 onwards, wherein it is found that in Column No.9 the entry made is "Sarkari Beelu". Petitioner submits that he is unaware of the order of forfeiture as no notice was issued.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions submits that notice prior to the order of forfeiture has not been issued.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be disposed off in terms of the directions in the case of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha vs. -4- NC: 2023:KHC:37231 WP No. 19684 of 2023 State of Karnataka - (2010) 1 AIR (Kar) (R) 700, referred to above while the AGA submits that the procedure for forfeiture as noticed in the order in W.P.No. 19639/2021 may be stipulated and matter may be disposed off in terms of the order dated 05.09.2022 in W.P.No. 19639/2021.
5. Heard both sides. Admittedly, there was no notice preceding the order of forfeiture. If that were to be so, on that sole ground, the order of forfeiture is required to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite best efforts, he has not obtained the copy of the order of forfeiture. Said submission is taken note of.
7. The procedure for forfeiture is to be in terms of the observations made in W.P.No.19639/2021. The observations in Paragraph Nos. 6 to 8 of the said writ petition reads as follows:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:37231 WP No. 19684 of 2023 "6. On hearing the leaned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that proviso to subsection (1) of Section 163 clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(i) of Section 87, the Tahasildar shall not declare any such occupancy or alienated holding to be forfeited to the State Government, where the arrears of land revenue due does not exceed Rs.10,000.00. This clearly shows the intention of the legislature that in the normal circumstances where there is arrears of land revenue, the State would not intend to forfeit the agricultural lands.
Day in and day out this Court has seen that the land revenue fixed by the Government for revenue lands do not even exceed Rs.2.00 per acre annually. In the present case this Court has found that the land revenue fixed in respect of the land in question is Rs.1.53. It goes to show that by fixing Rs.10,000.00 and more in the case where if the arrears of land revenue exceeded such amount, only then the question of passing of orders of forfeiture would arise. No doubt the said provision was inserted during the year 1991. Nevertheless from the check-list provided by the Tahasildar, as noticed hereinabove, the arrears of land revenue is said to be Rs.120.00. Two times -6- NC: 2023:KHC:37231 WP No. 19684 of 2023 Cess is added as Rs.187.00 and nominal penalty of Rs.4,680.00 is sought to be levied.
7. Insofar as Rule 119 is concerned, even in sub- rule (2) the intention of the amended provision which came into effect on 01.04.1988 is to grant relaxation and enable 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. In the considered opinion of this Court a plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 163 and the Rules, including Rule 119, it is clear that in the normal circumstances where there is arrears of land revenue, it is not the intention of the Government to forfeit the agricultural lands. On the other hand 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 Courts and authorities deem it fit to direct recovery of such debts to be collected as arrears of land revenue.
8. The case on hand definitely does not fall in the other category. Therefore, in terms of second proviso to subsection (1) of Section 163, it is -7- NC: 2023:KHC:37231 WP No. 19684 of 2023 required to be held that there could not have been a declaration of forfeiture in the present case. However having regard to the provisions referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Deputy Commissioner or the delegated authority, i.e., the Tahasildar is required to collect the arrears of land revenue in terms of the check list prepared by the Tahasildar and formally pass an order of cancellation of forfeiture (PADA). This Court would also concur with the opinion of the coordinate Bench in the case of B.M. Bayappa Reddy, since deceased by LRS Vs. State of Karnataka and another, in W.P. No. 33222/2016 dated 27.06.2022, that no time frame is fixed for collection of the arrears of land revenue, unless the forfeited land is otherwise disposed of."
8. The Division Bench in the case of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha vs. State of Karnataka - (2010) 1 AIR (Kar) (R) 700, has observed in Paragraph 5.1 as follows:
"5.1. It is settled law that the distraint/forfeiture order can be made only to the extent of land revenue arrears due and if the petitioners come forward to pay the said land revenue arrears, their -8- NC: 2023:KHC:37231 WP No. 19684 of 2023 possession has to be restored. The said proposition is supported by the following decisions of this Court:
(i) Nagappa Gowda v. Gurupadappa [AIR 1954 Mysore 39]
(ii) Zaheera Banu Kareem v. Gomathibai G. Kamath [1996 (5) KAR.L.J. 354] "
9. It is clear that the procedure for forfeiture must be in terms of the observations extracted hereinabove. In light of the above, the order of forfeiture is set aside. Respondent No.3 if is of the opinion that forfeiture proceedings are to be initiated must apply his mind to the observations made above and if conditions for forfeiture are made out, then the procedure as detailed above ought to be followed.
10. Accordingly, petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP