Disposed

Sri C R Vishwanatha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021WP/13650/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging a land forfeiture order. It held that the Tribunal cannot refuse to entertain an appeal via memorandum while the statutory remedy under the Act exists and directed the petitioner to file the appeal within the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file necessary appeal before the Tribunal within limitation, with time consumed set off.

Sri C R Vishwanatha Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13650 OF 2021(LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI C.R.VISHWANATHA S/O.SRI RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.95, MUNIYAPPA COMPOUND OPP. TO SAVARAMMA TEMPLE CHENNASANDRA, KADUGODI POST BENGALURU – 560 066 ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

¶11

M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 201

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR TIPTUR TALUK, TIPTUR TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 201 …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2019 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, TIPATUR SUB-DIVISION, TIPATUR VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶20

directed to accept notice for the respondents.

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 19.07.2019 passed by respondent No.2 under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’) forfeiting the lands bearing Sy.No.90/5 measuring an extent of 1 acre 07 guntas and Sy.No.90/6A measuring an extent of 38 guntas of Mathihalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Tipaturu Taluk.

¶22

The petitioner has stated that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') has issued an official memorandum dated 11.09.2020 stating that in view of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no appeal would be

¶23

¶24

entertained against an order passed under Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act of 1961 and therefore, refused to entertain the appeal against the impugned Order.

¶25

An order passed by respondent No.2 under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961, is appealable under Section 118 of the Act of 1961. So long as the remedy of an appeal is provided under the Act of 1961 as aforesaid, the Tribunal cannot issue any Circular/ Memorandum refusing to entertain the appeal. Therefore, having regard to the fact that Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961 have been deleted from the date of its coming into force, which however does not apply to concluded proceedings, it is for the Tribunal to ascertain whether the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 is concluded or not and whether the proceedings has abated or not.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to file necessary appeal before the Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed, the Tribunal shall consider the case in accordance with law and

¶27

¶28

pass appropriate orders. The time consumed in pursuing this Writ Petition shall be set off while calculating the limitation.

¶29

The learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶30

permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Sri C R Vishwanatha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C R Vishwanatha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M S Balaji Prasad Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy

Sri K.M.Eregowda Vs Smt K S Sathyamma

Hindu Kote Garadi (R) Vs Sheikh Budan Sab

Mr Arinjoy Ghosh Vs Nil

Sri. L Ramachandra Vs Sri. O K Harikumar

Mr Gabriel Gnanadas Vs the Karnataka Central Diocese