Quashed

Sri Dinesh J Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023WP/3540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order forfeiting his land for alleged violation of land recovery provisions. The Court held that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice due to non-service of notice and quashed it, remanding the matter for fresh consideration after recording service.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 14.09.2018 quashed and matter remanded to respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate order after affording opportunity to petitioner.

Sri Dinesh J Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3540 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3540 OF 2023 (LR-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI DINESH J. SHETTY S/O GOPALKRISHNA P. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT 244, 2^ND STAGE, 1^ST -B MAIN MAHALAKSHMIPURA, BENGALURU 86

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.SHEKARAPPA.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY

¶11

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶12

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101

¶14

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THASILDHAR GOWRIBIDHANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA 562101

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.SESHU.V., HCGP)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN L.R.F.79 (A)(B)/CR/33/2012-13 DATED 14/09/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/09/2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN L.R.F.79(A)(B)/CR/33/201213 AS PER ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 3540 of 2023

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

Though the matter is listed for Preliminary

¶25

Hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shekarappa for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Seshu.V., for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner purchased the land in Sy.No.18 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas situated at Thippaganahalli Village, Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District under registered sale deed dated 21.04.2012. Thereafter, the third respondent said to have initiated proceedings against the petitioner for alleged violation of

¶28

¶29

WP No. 3540 of 2023

¶30

Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act). It is the case of the petitioner that no notice of the proceedings was served and without providing an opportunity, impugned order dated 14.09.2018 is passed forfeiting the above stated land for violation of provisions of Section 79A and 79B of 1961 Act. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to order sheet placed on record at Annexure-E and submits that second respondent ordered issuance of notice through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), order sheet would not indicate service of notice on the petitioner. In that circumstances, petitioner prays for an opportunity to have his say before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings under Section 79A and 79B of 1961 Act.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the

¶32

other hand would justify the order by submitting that petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings by producing cogent material.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 3540 of 2023

¶35

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶36

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 14.09.2018 forfeiting the land of the petitioner for violation of Section 79A and 79B of 1961 Act, is in violation of principles of natural justice and no notice was served on the petitioner

¶37

of the proceedings. Annexure-E, order sheet of the proceedings would indicate that second respondentAssistant Commissioner on 16.08.2018 ordered issuance of notice to the petitioner by RPAD, but subsequent proceedings would not indicate service of notice on petitioner. Without recording sufficiency of service of notice on petitioner, second respondent-Assistant Commissioner could not have proceeded with the proceedings under Section 79A and 79B of 1961 Act. On perusal of the material on record including the impugned order, I am of the view that the petitioner was not served with the notice of the proceedings and the order at Annexure-A is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, the following:

¶38

¶39

WP No. 3540 of 2023

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Annexure-A bearing No.

¶42

¶43

under Section 79A and 79B of 1961 Act is quashed, remanding the matter to the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶44

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the second

¶45

respondent on 24.03.2023 at 03.00 p.m.

¶46

(iii) Second respondent shall pass appropriate order

¶47

within three months from the 24.03.2023 in accordance with law.

¶48

With the above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Dinesh J Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dinesh J Shetty 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

Sri Shankar Pachan Patel Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Shivaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathanamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Gollara Muddanna Since Dead by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Thimmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Babu Y Vs the Tahsildar