Allowed

Y K Nagarathna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2023WP/4138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an order forfeiting the petitioner's land for violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The court held that the petitioner was not served notice and permitted no opportunity to defend, violating natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and proceedings remanded to Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to petitioner.

Y K Nagarathna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4138 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4138 OF 2023 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Y K NAGARATHNA W/O PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.383, SAHANA NILAYA 4^TH CROSS, VIDYANAGARA HASSAN-573202.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. M ELIZABETH, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN-573201.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR HASSAN TALUK HASSAN-573201.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K SHOBHA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED ON 15.09.2018 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN IN PROCEEDINGS NO.79(A) AND 79(B) 18/16.17 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4138 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Heard learned counsel Smt.M.Elizabeth for petitioner

¶23

and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶24

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 15.09.2018 in Case No.79(A) & 79(B) 18/16-17 (Annexure-D) by which, the land of the petitioner in Sy.No.55/14 to an extent of 0.04 guntas is forfeited for violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short “1961 Act”).

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner initiated for violation of Sections 79A and 79B of 1961 Act

¶26

¶27

WP No. 4138 of 2023

¶28

and order passed is without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner had no opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite attention of this Court to paragraph 3 of the impugned order and points out that the petitioner was not residing in the address to which the notice was issued as reported by the Village Accountant. She submits that from the order itself it is clear that no notice was served on the petitioner. Thus, she prays for setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and requests for an opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner.

¶29

On the contrary, learned HCGP would submit that notice of proceedings for violation of Sections 79A and 79B of 1961 Act was issued to the address indicated in the sale deed, but the petitioner was not residing in the said address. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶30

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the considered

¶31

¶32

WP No. 4138 of 2023

¶33

view that the petitioner had no opportunity to participate before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, as no notice of the proceedings initiated for violation of Sections 79A and 79B of 1961 Act was served on the petitioner. At paragraph 3 of the impugned order dated 15.09.2018 it is noted as follows:

¶34

“¥ÀæwªÁ¢ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. UÁæªÀÄ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉÆÃn¸ï eÁjªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ”

¶35

The above sentence makes it clear that the petitioner was not residing in the address shown in the notice, as reported by the Village Accountant, from which it is clear that no notice of proceedings was served on the petitioner. In the absence of notice on the petitioner, the petitioner could not participated in the proceedings to defend his case before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:

¶36

¶37

WP No. 4138 of 2023

¶38

The writ petition is allowed.

¶39

The impugned order bearing case No.79(A) & 79(B) 18/16-17 (Annexure-D) dated 15.09.2018 is quashed and the proceedings is remanded to the second respondentAssistant Commissioner, Hassan sub-Division, Hassan for fresh consideration, after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶40

The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 18.05.2023 at 3.00 p.m. without expecting any fresh notice.

¶41

The second respondent-Assistant Commissioner shall dispose of the proceedings within 3 months thereafter.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Y K Nagarathna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y K Nagarathna 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. Cicilia D Souza Vs Mrs. Helan D Souza

Abbas S/O Late Hydros Beary Vs the State of Karnataka

Neelappa Gowda. S Vs the Principal Secretary

Raffiq Ahamed Vs Assistant Director of Land Records

Smt. Nagarathnamma, Vs the Thahasildar

Smt. Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner