Allowed

Sri Muddu @ Madhu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2022WP/5156/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed a forfeiture order of land issued by the Assistant Commissioner under the Land Reforms Act for violating principles of natural justice due to prolonged inactivity and lack of hearing. The petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the orders of forfeiture dated 27.05.2019 and 30.10.2019. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to hear the petitioner and pass an appropriate order. The petitioner directed to

Sri Muddu @ Madhu Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶5

W.P.No.5156/2022 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MUDDU @ MADHU, S/O SRI. SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT THALAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶8

SRIRAMPUR POST, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 101.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.CHOWDAREDDY T.M., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHICKBALLAPUR – 562 101.

¶14

THE THASILDAR, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561 209.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶17

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2019 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA, THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE – L; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 IN M.R.NO.H1/2019-2020 PASSED BY THE THASILDHAR GUDIBANDE VIDE ANNEXURE – N AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

An order of forfeiture passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the alleged contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Land Reforms Act, is called in question in this writ petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner highlights the fact that the entire procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner is illegal and arbitrary as could be seen from the order sheet maintained by him.

¶23

A perusal of the order sheet, which is produced at Annexure-K, indicates that after the appeal was registered and notices were ordered on 28.06.2014, for nearly four

¶24

¶25

years, there was no sitting, as the Assistant Commissioner was unavailable.

¶26

On 05.01.2019, the first sitting was conducted and the order sheet indicates that when the case was called, neither of the parties were present and the matter was adjourned to 18.02.2019. On 18.02.2019, the order sheet records the fact that either of the parties were present when the matter was called and yet the Assistant Commissioner has reserved his orders in the matter and on 27.05.2019 ie., after three months, the order was pronounced and the lands were ordered to be forfeited.

¶27

This procedure adopted by the Assistant Commissioner is highly improper. In the absence of either of the parties, the Assistant Commissioner could not have reserved the matter for orders. It is to be stated here that the Assistant Commissioner while exercising the power of forfeiture, virtually appropriates a private citizen’s land without payment of compensation. In such a kind of proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner is required to act

¶28

¶29

in a bona fide manner. The manner in which the entire proceedings are conducted leaves much to be desired. The impugned order having been passed in complete violation of natural justice, requires to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed.

¶30

The matter shall stand remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections and also to produce his documents and thereafter, hear the petitioner, pass an appropriate order.

¶31

The petitioner shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 26.07.2022.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri Muddu @ Madhu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muddu @ Madhu 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

Smt. Anusuyamma S Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Vittala Shetty Vs the Deputy Commissiner

Sri. Appajigowda Vs Assistant Comissioner

Sri.T.K.Krishna Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Y T Narendra Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Shivaram Vs State of Karnataka