Allowed

Sri M Huchegowda v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022WP/4949/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. The court quashed an order of forfeiture dated 02.02.2005 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, citing a similarity to a co-ordinate bench decision. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 02.02.2005 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration.

Sri M Huchegowda Vs the Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4949 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4949 OF 2022 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI M HUCHEGOWDA

¶10

S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶11

AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO.322 19TH CROSS ROAD, 2ND STAGE BEML LAYOUT, BASAVESHWARNAGAR BENGALURU 560 079

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. DESHRAJ.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE - 560002.

¶17

THE THASILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK

¶18

K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2005 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT OF HTE LAND BEARING SY.NO.19 MEASURING 0-20 GUNTAS AND 01 ACRE 01 GUNTAS BOTH SITUATED AT

¶22

¶23

WP No. 4949 of 2022

¶24

THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore, under the provisions of Section 83 for violation of the provisions in Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

WP No. 4949 of 2022

¶33

for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of

¶34

hearing to the aggrieved person.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate 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.

¶36

It is the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate 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.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 4949 of 2022

¶39

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

¶40

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 02.02.2005 passed in case No.L.R.F:BE:32/2003-04 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 - 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 Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶41

The petitioner shall appear before the respondentAssistant Commissioner on 05^th September 2022, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 4949 of 2022

¶45

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted

¶46

to file Memo of Appearance within a period of four weeks

¶47

from today.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

MH/-

Sri M Huchegowda v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Huchegowda 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 M K Munikrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

V Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Veerabhadrachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Haneef Sab Vs the Tahsildar

Shri Gange Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Muneera Begum Vs Government of Karnataka