Allowed

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar v the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021WP/12281/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition regarding land forfeiture proceedings. Citing an abatement principle from its earlier 2020 judgment, the court quashed orders by the Tribunal and Assistant Commissioner declaring the petitioner's sale deed void under amended KLR Act provisions and directed revenue record restoration.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned orders and a direction to authorities to restore revenue records for the subject land.

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12281/2016 (LR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

K. V. SREEDHARA VARIYAR S/O. LATE M.V. RAMA VARIYAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, FLAT NO. 2/266, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PUDUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD - 678 733, KERALA STATE.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. P. MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA - 571 440, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR GUNDLUPET TALUK - 571 111, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(By SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶16

¶17

QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.542/2012 (REVENUE) DATED 20.02.2015 AT ANNEXURE-D AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA IN CASE NO.L R F:267/2008-09 DATED 21.02.2012 AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.02.2015 in Appeal No.542/2012 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ' the Tribunal' ) and the order dated 21.02.2012 in Case No.LRF.267/2008-09by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-division, Kollegala [the first respondent].

¶21

The petitioner has purchased the land measuring 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.133/2 of Bendagahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk, Chamarajanagar district under the sale deed dated

¶22

¶23

16.05.2008. The Assistant Commissioner, after

¶24

initiation of enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the KLR Act'), by the impugned order dated 21.02.2012 has declared the sale deed dated 16.05.2008 void for violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act and forfeited the subject land to the State. The petitioner has impugned the Assistant Commissioner’s order before the Tribunal in Appeal No.542/2012 along with an application for condonation of delay. Though the Tribunal has allowed the application for condonation of delay but has dismissed the petitioner's appeal in No.542/2012.

¶25

The petitioner contends that his family owns

¶26

agricultural lands in the State of Kerala and he is entitled to purchase agricultural lands in the State of Karnataka as he was not disqualified. But the petitioner significantly, argues that because during the

¶27

¶28

pendency of the petition the provisions of section 79(A) and (B) and 80 of the KLR Act have been omitted firstly, by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 and later by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. Therefore, the proceedings initiated for declaration of the Sale deed dated 16.5.2008 void and forfeiture of the subject land would abate.

¶29

This Court in similar circumstances has

¶30

opined that the proceedings pending before this Court must abate in the light of the accepted position that the proceedings for forfeiture, including writ proceedings, pending as of the date of the aforesaid Ordinance and the Second Amendment Act would abate with the omission of the aforesaid provisions. A useful reference in this regard could be made to the decision of this Court in WRIT PETITION NO. 13073/2020 (LR) dated

¶31

¶32

19.11.2020 (Sri K.K.Srinivas vs. The State of Karnataka). Therefore, the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[a] The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.02.2015 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.542/2012 and the order dated 21.02.2012 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-division, Kollegala in Case No.LRF.267/2008-09 are quashed and the Authorities are directed to restore the revenue records for the subject land in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

[b] The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit application with the jurisdictional Tahasildhar for restoration of revenue entries for the subject lands. If the

¶36

¶37

petitioner files such application within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the jurisdictional Tahasildhar shall consider the same without delay.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar v the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar v the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bosch Limited Vs M/S Kumaran Auto Traders

Electronic City Police Station Vs Sri.R. Selvaraju

Sri. Venkatswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raju Scaria Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girish John Vs the Assistant Commissioner