Allowed

Smt Vimala v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022WP/8624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order forfeiting land. The Court held the order liable to be quashed since the record did not show notices were served when the matter was reposted for re-consideration. The matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to implead the petitioner and afford opportunities to both the petitioner and the vendor.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed and the matter remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to implead the petitioner, notify the vendor, and afford opportunity to both before pa

Smt Vimala Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8624 OF 2022 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT VIMALA W/O LATE M GOVINDARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O T N RAJASHEKAR BUILDING 10TH CROSS, SIR M V EXTENSION WARD NO.7, HOSKOTE TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI A.C. BALARAJ, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU

¶13

THE THAHASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK HOSKOTE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, A.G.A.)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 29-11-2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Proceedings for forfeiting the lands purchased by the petitioner's vendor under the registered Sale Deed dated 12-5-2011 were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶22

The petitioner's vendor appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and filed objections and also produced certain documents.

¶23

As per the order-sheet produced At Annexure-D, on 15-6-2012, the Assistant Commissioner posted the matter for orders without specifying a date.

¶24

On 5-9-2013 i.e. after one year three months, the order-sheet indicates that the matter was taken up for

¶25

¶26

fresh consideration and the Assistant Commissioner ordered notice to be issued and posted the matter on 17-10-2013. The order-sheet does not indicate as to whether notices were served on the petitioner's vendor. The Assistant Commissioner thereafter proceeded to reserve his orders and ultimately, on 24-11-2014, pronounced the order directing for forfeiture of land.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased

¶28

the property from one Rajashekar T.N. on 4-10-2012, i.e. during pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and the order of forfeiture is passed without notifying the petitioner or her vendor.

¶29

In my view, since the order-sheet does not indicate that notices were served on the petitioner's vendor when the Assistant Commissioner has taken up the matter for re-consideration, hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶30

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner to implead the petitioner and thereafter, afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file her objections and also hear her before passing order in accordance with law. The Assistant Commissioner shall also notify the petitioner's vendor, Mr. Rajashekar T.N. and afford opportunity to him before passing fresh order. The petitioner and the vendor shall appear before the Assistant Commissioner on 1-8-2022.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

kvk

Smt Vimala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vimala 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Smt. Anjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Leela Bai Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

S.Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Karnataka