Allowed

Kamala Rajendran v. the Asst. Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2021WP/5519/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged an order declaring a sale deed void under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The court held that continuing proceedings after a prior proceeding on the same cause concluded in the petitioner's favor was erroneous and barred in law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.08.2018 in case No.LRF:SR(Ho):505/2011-12 by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed.

Kamala Rajendran Vs the Asst. Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5519/2021 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

KAMALA RAJENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O R RAJENDRAN, NO.5, DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, 3RD PHASE, BENGALOORU-560071. ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT JYOTHI S KEMAGENDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561203.

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALOORU RURAL

¶12

DISTRICT-562114. ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI R SRINIVASAGOWDA, AGA)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT 31.08.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 ANNEXURE-A.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, who asserts ownership of land in Sy.No.116/1 measuring 1 acre out of 3 acres 7 guntas of land in Jinnagara Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk (the subject land), has impugned the order dated 31.08.2018 in case No.LRF:SR(Ho):505/2011-12 by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapura [the first respondent].

¶20

The first respondent by the impugned the order dated 31.08.2018, in exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, has declared the sale deed dated 23.04.2011 executed in favour of the petitioner for the subject land void for violation of the provisions of Section 79A and 79B of the KLR Act and directed forfeiture of the subject land.

¶21

¶22

It is undisputed that the proceeding in No.LRF:SR(Ho):505/2011-12 is commenced by the first respondent pursuant to a reference by the second respondent – the Tahasildar, Hosakote Taluk - by the report dated 21.11.2011

¶23

in No.LRF:79AB:424/2011-12. But on the basis of this very same report dated 21.11.2011 earlier proceeding is commenced in LRF.SR(Ho):260/2012-13. The petitioner on being served with the notice of the proceeding in LRF.SR(Ho):260/2012-13, has entered appearance and produced the documents to establish that she hails from an agricultural family, the land held by her family is acquired for the purpose of a Government School and that her annual income was below a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-. The first respondent, considering these circumstances, has dropped the proceedings in No.LRF.SR(Ho):260/2012-13. Nevertheless, the present proceeding No.LRF:SR(Ho):505/2011-12 is continued and the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 is made on the ground that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause.

¶24

¶25

If the proceeding initiated pursuant to the

¶26

Tahasildar's report dated 21.11.2011 in LRF:79AB:424/2011-12

¶27

has already culminated with the orders on 22.07.2013 in LRF.SR(Ho):260/2012-13 in favour of the petitioner, there could

¶28

not have been yet another proceeding on the same cause. Therefore, the continuation of the proceeding No.LRF:SR(Ho):505/2011-12 is contrary to law, and the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 is an obvious error and would be barred in law. As such, the petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 in No.LRF:SR(Ho):505/201112 by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura SubDivision, Doddaballapura [the first respondent] is quashed.

¶29

SD/JUDGE

¶30

BSR

Kamala Rajendran v. the Asst. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamala Rajendran v. the Asst. Commissioner

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

Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Ramachandra Vs the Thasildhar

Zahirabi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Byregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Rajareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

T S Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka