Allowed

Sri Girish John v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021WP/4165/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner declaring a land sale deed void, directing restoration of revenue records, primarily on grounds of delay condonation and statutory abatement of impugned provisions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders by the Tribunal and Assistant Commissioner are quashed; authorities directed to restore revenue records in favor of the petitioner.

Sri Girish John 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. 4165/2020 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI GIRISH JOHN S/O JOHN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST R/AT KUMBATT HOUSE PUDUPPADY P O KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE 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 CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶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.192/2018, DATED 16.10.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LAND R-1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB DIVISION, KOLLEGAL IN CASE NO. LRF 09/2013-14 DATED 05.05.2015 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 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.192/2018 dated 16.10.2019 and the order dated 05.05.2015 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-division, Kollegala [the first respondent] in Case No.LRF.9/2013-14.

¶21

The petitioner has purchased the land measuring 0.23½ guntas in Sy.No.156/6 of Beguru village, Gundlupete Taluk, Chamarajanagar district [the subject land] under the sale deed dated 11.12.2012.

¶22

¶23

The Assistant Commissioner, after initiation of enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the KLR Act'), has declared the sale deed dated 11.12.2012 void for violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act and forfeited the subject land to the State by the impugned order dated 5.5.2015. The petitioner has impugned the Assistant Commissioner’s order before the Tribunal in Appeal No.192/2018 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.192/2018 rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

¶24

3. The petitioner contends that his family owns

¶25

agricultural lands in the State of Kerala and he is entitled to purchase agricultural lands in the State of Karnataka as he is not otherwise disqualified. The petitioner was not aware of the proceedings initiated by

¶26

¶27

the Assistant Commissioner or the impugned order, and immediately after coming to know about the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 05.05.2015 has filed appeal 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 .

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner apart from asserting these assertions and canvassing 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v/s Managing Committee of

¶29

¶30

Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, 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 11.12.2012 void and forfeiture of the subject land would abate.

¶31

This Court in similar circumstances has

¶32

opined that the proceedings pending before this Court must abate in the light of the accepted position that wherever the proceedings, 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

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

[a] The petition is allowed and the impugned

¶37

order dated 16.10.2019 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.192/2018 and the order dated 05.05.2015 by the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegala Sub-division, Kollegala in Case No.LRF.09/2013-14 are quashed and the Authorities are directed to restore the revenue records for the subject land in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

[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 petitioner files such application within four weeks from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

Sri Girish John v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Girish John 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

K. v. Sreedhara Variyar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka