Partly allowed

Sri.Lalji Karsan Patel v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022WP/10150/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a land forfeiture order due to delay in filing an appeal. Condoning the delay based on lack of legal communication and illness, the court quashed the Administrative Tribunal's order and remitted the case for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issuing to quash the impugned order; matter remitted to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits.

Sri.Lalji Karsan Patel Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10150 OF 2021(KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.LALJI KARSAN PATEL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O KARSAN M PATEL, R/AT NO.83,2^ND CROSS, SRI.LAKSHMI KUNJ, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, BABUSAB PALYA, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 043.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.ARASIMHA PRASAD S D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND;

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶13

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, GROUND FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.07.2020, IN APPEAL NO.333/2019, PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-A HEREIN) AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 02.07.2020 whereby his challenge to the land forfeiture order made by the 2^nd respondentAssistant Commissioner in Appeal No.333/2019 has been negatived essentially on the ground that the said appeal was filed belatedly. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the appeal was filed belatedly cannot be disputed; however the forfeiture order of the

¶21

¶22

Assistant Commissioner dated 12.11.2010 was not

¶23

communicated to his client who during the said period had contracted long illness requiring continuous medical treatment. He draws attention of the court to the Record of Rights in which entries in his favour continued upto the year 2018-19 as well. So arguing he seeks allowing of the writ petition.

¶24

Learned AGA having accepted notice for the respondents, opposes the petition contending that there is a long delay of about eight years in filing the appeal before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and no plausible explanation having been provided, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay; he also contends that law does not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy; so contending he seeks dismissal of writ petition.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶26

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is

¶27

¶28

inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the explanation offered by the petitioner for the long delay brooked in filing the subject appeal merited acceptance, more particularly when there is absolutely no material to contradict petitioner’s version that the land forfeiture order

¶29

of the year 2010 was not communicated to his client as prescribed u/s.115(3) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Added, even the entries in the Record of Rights are continuing in the name of petitioner for the year 2018-19. There is no reason to reject petitioners contention that he had absolutely no knowledge of forfeiture order.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than

¶31

justified in arguing that in the absence of entries in the Record of Rights made in favour of the State pursuant to the Land Forfeiture Order made u/s.83 because of alleged violation of Sec.79 (A) & (B) of the 1961 Act, the Court has to presume that there was no communication of the said

¶32

¶33

order. Further, no third party rights are created in respect of the subject land till date.

¶34

When property rights of the citizens are involved, the Courts have to keep in view the constitutional guarantee enacted under Article 300A although Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right. Secondly, it is not that if the petitioner had filed the appeal, the same would have been heard & disposed off expeditiously; at the most the appeal papers would have been languishing in the cupboards of the Tribunal. This court has been seeing old cases being decided by the Appellate Tribunal, belatedly. Justice of the case warrants delay being condoned and appeal being heard on merits; by this no prejudice would be caused to anyone.

¶35

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; the delay in filing the subject appeal

¶36

¶37

having been condoned the matter is remitted to the portals of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for consideration and disposal afresh, on merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶38

Costs made easy.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Snb/

Sri.Lalji Karsan Patel v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Lalji Karsan Patel 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

Chikkamuniyappa S/O Sadappa Since Dead by His Lrs Motamma Vs Abdul Sattar Khan S/O Late Abdul Raheem Sab Since Dead by His Lrs Smt Parveen Taj

Rangaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Rangaramaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Kenchegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

H B Gopal Vs the Deputy Commissioner