Allowed

Sri Lobzang Samastan S/O Tundup Goboo v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024WP/101233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting a land acquisition claim under Karnataka Land Reforms Act sections 79-A and 79-B. Ruling that these sections were omitted by subsequent amendments but savings clauses apply to pending cases, the court abated the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20-05-2013 quashed; Respondent No. 2 directed to restore petitioner's name in revenue records within four weeks.

Sri Lobzang Samastan S/O Tundup Goboo Vs the Assistant… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 101233 OF 2024 (LR-)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. LOBZANG SAMASTAN S/O. TUNDUP GONBOO, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL AND PRIEST, R/O. #LAMA CAMP NO-2, DERPUNG GOMANG NGARI LIKIR, TEBETAN COLONY, MUNDAGOD, KARNATAKA, NOW AT: 61-UPPER LIKIR- P O KHALSI LEH, LADAKHA, UNION TERRITORY OF THE INDIA-LADAKHA.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. I.Y. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIRASHI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.

¶15

BHARATHI H M

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

TASHILDAR, MUNDAGOD TALUKA, MUNDAGOD, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.

¶18

(BY SRI. U.G. KATTIMANI, HCGP)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.BHOOSU/ AP/VIVA/12/2012-13 DATED 20-5-2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 I.E. ANNEXURE-“D”.

¶21

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

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

Petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.250/1 measuring 1 acre out of total measuring 2 acre 06 gunta situated at Indor village, Mundagod taluka having purchased the property on 17.07.2002 from its vendor. Pursuant thereto, the name of petitioner was entered in the revenue records as per the registered Sale Deed.

¶26

Petitioner thereafter purchased the another agriculture land bearing Sy.No.245A/2 measuring 33 gunta situated at Indor village, taluka Mundagod by a registered Sale Deed for a valuable consideration of Rs.82,000/- from its earlier owners i.e., (i) Sri Mardansab S/o. Moulasab Khaji, (ii) Sri Rajesab S/o. Moulasab Khaji, (iii) Smt. Rajabhi W/o. Shaikat Ali Saidalli, (iv) Smt. Imambi W/o. Ahamadsab Balekai and (v) Smt. Muntaj W/o. Lateebsab Somanakatti.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶28

After purchase of the property, the Sub-Registrar Mundagod has sent “J” form to respondent No.2Tahashildar to mutate the name of petitioner and thereafter respondent No.1 got issued notice dated 27.11.2012 to the petitioner which was not served on the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner had gone to Ladakh and stayed there till January, 2024 due to bad health. Thereafter, the petitioner returned to the Mundagod and he was shocked to see the name of “Karnataka Government” in the revenue records on the ground that there is violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act, 1961’) at the time of purchasing the land which is disputed and is incorrect.

¶29

Petitioner further contends that in the same village they have another agriculture land which is well within the knowledge of Village Account and respondent No.2Tahashildar. Therefore, without verifying these facts, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶31

20.05.2013, which is illegal contrary to the settled principles of law and against the statute.

¶32

It is vehement contention of learned counsel for

¶33

the petitioner that respondent No.1 has rejected the entry of name of petitioner without applying his mind and has passed the impugned order which is illegal and contrary to the statue and also facts of the case. It is also contended by learned counsel that prior to purchase of land bearing Sy.No.245A/2 measuring 33 gunta, the petitioner had already an existing agriculture land in Sy.No.250/1, measuring 1 acre out of 2 acre 6 gunta having purchased same in the year 2002. It is out of income derived from the said agriculture land the present property i.e., Sy.No.245A/2 is purchased, therefore, there is no violation of Section 79-A or 79-B of the Act, 1961. Therefore, it is vehemently contended that the impugned order passed is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also against the statute and the Judgments of this Court.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶35

Per Contra, the learned HCGP sustains the impugned order and contends that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in passing the impugned order and the same is passed in accordance to law prevailing as on the date of the said order.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents.

¶37

It is relevant to note that Sections 79-A and 79-B

¶38

of the Act, 1961 came to be omitted by the State Government by the Act No.56/2020. However, Section 12 of the Act, 2020 deals with savings clause and it states that notwithstanding the omission of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act, 1961 with effect from 1^st day of March, 1974, all cases finally disposed of before promulgation of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 shall remain unaffected. Sub-Section (2) of the Act states that all cases pending in any Court pertaining to Sections 79-A, 79-B and 79-C of the Act, 1961 shall hereby stand abated.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶40

Though, it is seen that the impugned order is

¶41

passed by the 1^st respondent the possession of land is still with the petitioner, therefore the proceedings on the file of respondent No.1 does not stand finally concluded. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent stands abated in view of Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Amendment Act, 2020. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶44

(ii) Impugned order dated 20.05.2013 passed

¶45

by the 1^st respondent at Annexure-D is hereby quashed.

¶46

(iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to

¶47

restore the name of petitioner by deleting the name of “Government of Karnataka” in the revenue records pertaining to property in question. The said exercise of change of

¶48

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:15312 WP No. 101233 of 2024

¶49

revenue entries shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶51

CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Lobzang Samastan S/O Tundup Goboo v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lobzang Samastan S/O Tundup Goboo v. the Assistant Commissioner

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 Geeta D/O Melgirigouda Policepatil Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumari Rashi D/O Duradundeshwar Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Dyamajji Rokkappa S/O D Bhimappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vishva Bharat Seva Samithi Vs the Director

Smt. Sunita W/O Santosh Suryawanshi Vs Shri. Aniruddha S/O Arun Kumbhar

Siddeshwar S/O Kenchappa Koujalagi Vs the Deputy Commissioner