Allowed

Smt. Haseena Begum v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022WP/22332/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed an order of land forfeiture passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice. The court relied on a co-ordinate Bench decision and remanded the matter for fresh consideration under the amended provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.09.2014 is quashed and set aside; the matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration with notice to the petitioner.

Smt. Haseena Begum Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22332 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. 22332 OF 2021 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. HASEENA BEGUM W/O MUSTAQ HUSSIAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.8, 1^ST MAIN ROAD VENKATA GOWDA LAYOUT KEMPAPURA HEBBAL BENGALURU-560024

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PERMANENTLY RESIDENT OF NO.23-E, DODDAKUNAL GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M N, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216

¶16

THE THAHASILDAR GUBBI TALUK

¶17

TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SESHU.V, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DTD

¶21

¶22

WP No. 22332 of 2021

¶23

15.09.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE MUTATION AND KHATHA AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶27

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur, under the provisions of Section 83 for violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 22332 of 2021

¶31

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.

¶32

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 sub-section(1) of Section 12 of the amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings have reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶33

Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate

¶34

¶35

WP No. 22332 of 2021

¶36

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 co-ordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶37

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2014 passed in case No.L.R.F.(79A-79B) CR 03/2011-2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondentAssistant 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 Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶38

The petitioner shall appear before the respondentAssistant Commissioner on 12^th September 2022, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶39

Ordered accordingly.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Smt. Haseena Begum v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Haseena Begum 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. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Sathish Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Omkarappa Vs the State of Karnataka