Allowed

Sri. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy v the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022WP/13207/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to quash a land forfeiture order due to lack of notice. The court relied on a coordinate bench decision, noting similarity in facts. The petition was allowed, impugned orders set aside, and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to consider the amendment Ordinance 2020 and ascertain land status.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Assistant Commissioner were quashed. Matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in light of the amendment Ord

Sri. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 13207 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13207 OF 2021 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. B. V. RAJASHEKARA REDDY S/O LATE BADHAMI VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562105

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. G A VISHWANATHA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577228

¶15

TAHSILDAR TARIKERE TALUK TARIKERE CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577228

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.SESHU.V, HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.6.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.778/2011 (CH-1) VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP No. 13207 of 2021

¶22

ORDER

¶23

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dated 08.10.2010 passed by the respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub-Division, Tarikere, invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for violation of the provisions contained in Section 79A and 79B of the Act and the subsequent orders of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 778/2011 dated 14.06.2018 and in Rev.Misc.No.45/2018 dated 11.06.2020.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021 remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 13207 of 2021

¶28

Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any court/authority.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader points out from the impugned order that notice was indeed issued to the petitioner and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶30

It is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that even as per the materials available on record, after forfeiture, the excess lands have been granted by the State Government to third parties. The Assistant Commissioner is therefore required to ascertain, whether the forfeited lands still remain with the State Government or has been granted to third parties. If the lands have been granted to third party, then subsection(1) of Section 12 of the amending Act will apply to

¶31

say that the proceedings have reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending

¶32

¶33

WP No. 13207 of 2021

¶34

Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶35

Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶36

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 778/2011 dated 14.06.2018 and in Rev.Misc.No.45/2018 dated 11.06.2020 and also the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in case No.L.R.F.C.R.14/200809, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka

¶37

¶38

WP No. 13207 of 2021

¶39

Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶40

The petitioner shall appear before the respondentAssistant Commissioner on 19^th September 2022, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant

Commissioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

Sri. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy v the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy 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

Sri Abdul Quadar Mukka Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagamma Vs the Secretary

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathish Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Omkarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Haseena Begum Vs the Assistant Commissioner