Allowed

Sri Raju Scaria v. The Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021WP/4150/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a petitioner to quash orders declaring his land forfeiture. The Court held that proceedings initiated under specific sections of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which were later omitted via a 2020 Amendment, would abate, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders and restoration of revenue records.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 16.10.2019 and 18.12.2012 were quashed; authorities were directed to restore revenue records in favour of the petitioner.

Sri Raju Scaria Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | 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. 4150/2020 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. RAJU SCARIA S/O SCARIA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/AT VARIKKAVAKKIL HOUSE, KOZHIKODE TALUK & DISTRICT KERALA STATE - 673 001.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. P MAHESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

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

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 440.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 01.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.193/2019, DATED 16.10.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION, KOLLEGAL IN CASE NO. LRF 64/2012-13 DATED 18.12.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶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 16.10.2019 in Appeal No.193/2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ' the Tribunal' ) and the order dated 18.12.2012 in Case No.LRF.64/2012-13by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-division, Kollegala [the first respondent].

¶21

The petitioner has purchased the land measuring 34 guntas in Sy.No.156/2 and land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.156/4 of Begur village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupete Taluk, Chamarajanagar

¶22

¶23

district [ the subject lands ] under the sale deed dated 12.6.2012. The Assistant Commissioner, after 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 18.12.2012 has declared the sale deed dated 12.6.2012 void for violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act and forfeited the subject lands to the State. The petitioner has impugned the Assistant Commissioner’s order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.193/2018 along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal by the other impugned order dated 16.10.2019 has dismissed the petitioner's appeal in No.193/2018 rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

¶24

The petitioner contends that his family owns agricultural lands in the State of Kerala and he is entitled to purchase agricultural lands in the State of

¶25

¶26

Karnataka as he was not disqualified. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner or the impugned order, but immediately after coming to know about the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 18.12.2012 has filed appeal in No.193/2018 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal could not have rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequentially the appeal without examining the circumstances of the case more particularly, the specific assertion that the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order until immediately prior to the date of the filing of the appeal.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner canvasses that the Tribunal should have considered the question of delay in the background of the settled proposition that the Courts and Tribunals must not take a pedantic view and must lean in favour of adjudication on merits in the light of the decision of the

¶28

¶29

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v/s Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 . The learned counsel urges that during the 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 12.6.2012 void and forfeiture of the subject land would abate.

¶30

5. This Court in similar circumstances has

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

in this regard could be made to the decision of this Court in WRIT PETITION NO. 13073/2020 (LR) dated 19.11.2020 (Sri K.K.Srinivas vs. The State of Karnataka). Therefore, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

[a] The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.193/2018 and the order dated 18.12.2012 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-division, Kollegala in Case No.LRF.64/2012-13 are quashed and the Authorities are directed to restore the revenue records for the subject land in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

[b] The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit

¶37

application with the jurisdictional Tahasildhar for restoration of revenue entries for the subject lands. If the petitioner files such application within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this

¶38

¶39

order, the jurisdictional Tahasildhar shall consider the same without delay.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

Sri Raju Scaria v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raju Scaria 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

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Girish John Vs the Assistant Commissioner