Allowed

Sri N Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2022WP/5757/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the quash of forfeiture order by the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for alleged violation of notice provisions. The High Court allowed the petition, finding facts similar to a coordinate bench's decision, and remanded the case for fresh consideration regarding land status and audit procedures.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of forfeiture dated 26.01.2015 quashed and matter remitted to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration.

Sri N Prakash Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5757 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2022 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI N PRAKASH S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO 1032, 9^TH CROSS SUNNADAKERI K R MOALLA MYSORE.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARATMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶14

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVSIION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISRICT 571434.

¶16

TAHASILDHAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVSIION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISRICT 571434.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. SESHU.V.,HCGP., FOR R1 & R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 DATED 26.01.2015 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

¶21

WP No. 5757 of 2022

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

Learned HCGP takes notice for all the respondents.

¶26

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

¶27

26.01.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura, Mandya District, 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.

¶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 coordinate 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. 5757 of 2022

¶31

Learned HCGP 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 HCGP 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 Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and

¶34

¶35

WP No. 5757 of 2022

¶36

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 26.01.2015 passed in case No.¨sÀÆ¸ÀÄ:¥Àj²Ã®£É:55/14-15 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted 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 78-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶38

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

¶39

Ordered accordingly.

¶40

Learned HCGP is permitted to file Memo of Appearance

¶41

within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Psg*

Sri N Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Prakash v. 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

M/S. Club Cabana Recreations Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Venkatamma Vs State of Karnataka

A Sudhakara Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jyothi D Vs the Govt. of Karnataka

Shri. Chikkarevanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri a N Santhoshkumar Vs State of Karnataka