Allowed

Sri. Hidayatulla Babumiya Shaikh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021WP/20323/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging a land forfeiture order, ruling that the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal remains available. The Court directed the petitioner to file the appeal, set off the time spent in this writ petition, and clarified that the Tribunal must determine if proceedings concluded.

What did the court decide?

Disposed directing the petitioner to file necessary appeal before the Tribunal; time consumed set off for limitation purposes.

Sri. Hidayatulla Babumiya Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.20323 OF 2021 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. HIDAYATULLA BABUMIYA SHAIKH S/O BABUMIYA PAPAMIYA SHAIKA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, MANECK HALL, EAST STREET, CAMP, PUNE 411001. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN 562159.

¶13

3 . THE THASILDAR ARSIKERE TALUK, ARSIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT 573103.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD.31.12.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for the respondents.

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 31.12.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act of 1961’) forfeiting the land bearing Sy.No.28/8 of Gollarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, measuring 03 Acres 03 guntas.

¶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 entertained against an order passed under Sections 79A,

¶23

¶24

79B and 79C of the Act of 1961 and therefore, refused to entertain the appeal against the impugned Order.

¶25

An order passed by the 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 the 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

NR/NM

Sri. Hidayatulla Babumiya Shaikh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hidayatulla Babumiya Shaikh 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

Marappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Krishil Capital Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr N Venugopal Reddy

Dr Rajani Pai Vs State of Karnataka

R S Gopalkrishna Vs Shyamala Hegde

Chidananda Reddy Vs T Thimma Reddy @ Thadaparthi Thimmanna

Sri Somegowda Vs Assistant Commissioner