Partly allowed

Sri Puttaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jul 2021WP/4732/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an Assistant Commissioner's order declaring a sale deed void under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as it was passed without notice, violating natural justice. Proceedings were restored for reconsideration with the question regarding a 2020 amendment left open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned declaration under Section 83 of the KLR Act is quashed; proceedings restored to Assistant Commissioner with liberty to rely on the 2020 Amendment Act; domestic appearance fixed.

Sri Puttaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — 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. 4732/2021 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. PUTTASWAMY S/O. LATE. BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KANAKA NAGARA, THAGADURU VILLAGE, BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 119.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION, DC OFFICE COMPOUND, MYSORE - 570 005.

¶13

THE THASILDAR

¶14

T. NARASIPURA TALUK,

¶15

T. NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2014 PASSED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.68/2, MEASURING 00.18.08 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT BANNAHALLI VILALGE, KASABA HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT (VIDE ANNEXURE-A)

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 08.01.2014 in LRF:79(A) & (B):234/2012-13 by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, [the second respondent who is hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assistant Commissioner’] under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, the 'KLR Act'). The Assistant Commissioner by this impugned order dated 08.01.2014 has declared that the sale deed dated 03.11.2003 executed in favour of the petitioner

¶22

¶23

for the land measuring 0-18½ guntas in Sy.No.68/2 of Bannahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District [the subject land] void for violation of the provisions of Section 79-A & 79-B of the KLR Act.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hails from an agricultural family and he is entitled to purchase and hold agricultural lands. The petitioner does not suffer from any disqualification and he has accordingly purchased the subject land under the sale deed dated 03.11.2003. However, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 08.01.2014 without notice to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Assistant Commissioner, who is mandated to hold a summary enquiry under the provisions of Section 83 of the KLR Act, is obliged to ensure that all measures are taken for issuance of notice of enquiry so that the reasonable hearing is extended, but the

¶25

¶26

Assistant commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 08.01.2014 without such opportunity.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the impugned order dated 08.01.2014 must be quashed on this short ground with liberty to the petitioner to urge before the Assistant Commissioner all grounds to show that the sale deed dated 03.11.2003 is not executed in violation of the provisions of Section 79-A and 79-B of the KLR Act as also to contend that the Assistant Commissioner cannot continue the proceedings for alleged violation of these provisions in view of the omission thereof by the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020.

¶28

The learned Additional Government

¶29

Advocate, relying upon a decision of coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.7468/2021 which is disposed of on 15.04.2021 [Sri.L.Arun Kumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner], submits that this Court has in similar

¶30

¶31

circumstances restored the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider but with the observation that the petitioner in the case on hand would not be entitled to the benefit of the amendment as no proceedings were pending as on the date of the amendment Act or the earlier ordinance.

¶32

There is no material on record to indicate that the Assistant commissioner has taken all measures to ensure that the petitioner had reasonable opportunity in LRF:79(A) & (B):234/2012-13 to show cause against the declaration of the sale deed dated 03.11.2003 void and forfeiture of the subject land. Therefore, and in the light of the rival submissions as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that, leaving all questions [including the question whether the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020] open for consideration by the Assistant Commissioner strictly in accordance

¶33

¶34

with the decision of this Court, the impugned order dated 08.01.2014 in LRF:79(A) & (B):234/2012-13 by the Assistant Commissioner must be quashed on the short ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

[a] The petition is allowed-in-part, and the impugned order dated 08.01.2014 by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, [the second respondent] in LRF:79(A) & (B):234/2012-13 is quashed.

¶37

[b] The proceedings in LRF:79(A) & (B):234/2012-13 is restored to the board of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore, for reconsideration in the light of the observations made herein.

¶38

[c] The petitioner shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division, Mysore

¶39

¶40

without further notice on 19.08.2021, and the Assistant Commissioner shall endeavour to dispose of the proceedings within a period of six weeks from 19.08.2021.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

BSR

Sri Puttaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puttaswamy 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

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 Girish John Vs the Assistant Commissioner