Partly allowed

Mumtaz Baji v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022WP/24814/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a forfeiture order under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. It quashed the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal, declaring the proceedings abated based on the saving clause of the 2020 Amendment Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 26.07.1996 and 31.01.2017 are quashed; proceedings declared abated; writ petition disposed of.

Mumtaz Baji Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 24814 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24814 OF 2018 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MUMTAZ BAJI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS W/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSAIN BAJI OCC:CULTIVATOR R/AT KINNIKAMBLA MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT.BIBIJAN SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶12

2a. MR. KHAN MOHMMED JAVEED AGED 55 YEARS S/O LATE KOTE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM R/AT NO.205/206, HIMACHAL OPP: NEW INDIA QUARTERS, JUHU LANE, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058.

¶13

2b. MR. KHAN MOHAMMED KHALID AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE KOTE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM R/AT NO.402, MINARETTE APARTMENT PLOT 39, CTS NO.178, DADHABAI CROSS ROAD NO.2

¶14

ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058.

¶15

2c. MR. SAJID IBRAHIM KHAN AGED 51 YEARS

¶16

S/O LATE KOTE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM

¶17

¶18

WP No. 24814 of 2018

¶19

R/AT: A-401, SAMARTHA AANGAN-3 OSHIWARA, ANDHEREI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058.

¶20

2d. MR. SHAHID MOHMMED KHAN AGED 44 YEARS S/O LATE KOTE MOHAMMED IBRAHIM R/AT NO.205/206, HIMACHAL OPP: NEW INDIA QUARTERS, JUHU LANE, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI-400058.

¶21

SRI.SYED SADIQ ALI S/O SYED MOHAMOOD, OCC:CULTIVATOR, R/AT UDAYAVAR, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, KANDHAYA BHAVANA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶27

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, GROUND FLOOR, KANDHAYA BHAVANA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

WP No. 24814 of 2018

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 31.01.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPEAL NO.157/2013 AS PER ANENXURE-A AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 26.07.1996 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN PROCEEDINGS AS PER ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶36

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of forfeiture passed by the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, invoking the provisions of Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 for violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the subsequent order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.157/2013 dated 31.01.2017.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, Karnataka Act No.56 of

¶38

¶39

WP No. 24814 of 2018

¶40

2020, whereby the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C have been omitted. Moreover, as per Section 12 of the Amending Act, all cases finally disposed off before promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) shall remain unaffected by the Ordinance. Section 12 (2) provides that all cases pending before any Court, Tribunal or other Authority competent under the provisions of the Principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall stand abated.

¶41

Admittedly, as on the date of Ordinance, the proceedings initiated by the petitioners herein are pending before this Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act clearly provides that if the proceedings are pending before any Court, Tribunal or any Authority competent under the provisions of the Principal Act as on the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance, 2020, such proceedings shall stand abated.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 24814 of 2018

¶44

Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that co-ordinate benches have passed orders in various writ petition including W.P.No.41744/2019, W.P.No.51851/2016 etc., taking note of the saving clause under Section 12 of the Amending Act.

¶45

For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶46

:: O R D E R ::

¶47

(i) The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶48

(ii) The impugned order dated 26.07.1996 passed by the 2^nd respondent– Assistant Commissioner and the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.157/2013 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶49

(iii) The proceedings in No.LRF (83)136/ 1995-96 is hereby declared as having abated.

¶50

¶51

WP No. 24814 of 2018

¶52

Ordered accordingly.

¶53

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Mumtaz Baji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mumtaz Baji 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

Sri. T Keshavegowda Vs State of Karnataka

G Balakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a N Santhoshkumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

A S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shivarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka