Allowed

A Manjunath v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2024WP/17980/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchaser challenged forfeiture order under Sections 79(a) and (b) Karnataka Land Reforms Act, contending the enquiry concerned survey numbers other than his purchased land and that he was given no notice. Court held absence of notice vitiated proceedings and Section 12 of the 2020 Amendment could not cure the defect; order quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.06.2008 of respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner quashed and set aside; writ petition allowed.

A Manjunath Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:35958 WP No. 17980 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 17980 OF 2024 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A MANJUNATH, S/O LATE ALAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT VRUSHABHAVATHIRPURA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHETHAN B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ALBHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR - 562 159.

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR - 562 159.

¶15

THE TAHASHILDAR, RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR - 562 159.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:35958 WP No. 17980 of 2024

¶18

SMT. FARIDUNNISA, W/O MOHAMMADULLA KHAN, AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO. 1, PIPELINE, HALEGUDDADALLI ROAD, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/06/2008 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN L.R.F NO.(79) 32/2002-03 IN HOLDING THAT THE PURCHASE OF PORTION OF SUBJECT MATTER LAND IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 79/A AND 79/B OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT. A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS HEREBY PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of forfeiture passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under Section 79(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:35958 WP No. 17980 of 2024

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

learned AGA for the respondent-State.

¶29

The primary contention raised by the petitioner while challenging the impugned order is rooted in a fundamental error in the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner. The enquiry, which was purportedly initiated against respondent No.4, concerned agricultural land bearing Survey No.285, measuring 36 guntas, and Survey No.216/6, measuring 10 guntas. Both these land parcels were part of the property owned by respondent No.4, as recorded in the sale deed dated 01.10.1994. However, despite the enquiry being initiated in relation to these specific properties, the Assistant Commissioner erroneously referred to Survey No.255, a distinct property measuring 4 acres and 15 guntas, which

¶30

was not part of the subject matter in the original proceedings or the sale deed related to respondent No.4. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the proceedings under Section 79(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Land

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:35958 WP No. 17980 of 2024

¶33

Reforms Act, 1961, did not pertain to the land the petitioner had purchased, specifically Survey No.255, measuring 36 guntas, which is part of a larger extent of 4 acres and 15 guntas. Importantly, the petitioner was never notified about these proceedings, which culminated in the impugned order of forfeiture, dated 2008. This lack of notice and the fact that the proceedings related to a property not connected to the petitioner underscores the serious procedural errors and the violation of the petitioner's rights.

¶34

In the present case, the petitioner has

¶35

contended that the order of forfeiture is bad in law and cannot be sustained under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, particularly in the light of the amendments made in 2020. It is pertinent to note that Section 12 of the 2020 Amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not applicable to the case at hand for the reason that Section 12 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020, was introduced to retrospectively

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:35958 WP No. 17980 of 2024

¶37

validate certain actions related to land holdings and restrictions under Sections 79(a) and 79(b) of the Act. However, the petitioner in the present case was never notified of the proceedings initiated under Section 79(a) and 79(b), which is a fundamental requirement of natural justice. The absence of notice to the petitioner vitiates the entire proceedings as the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to defend their case, making the order of forfeiture illegal and void ab initio .

¶38

The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh¹ , held that any retrospective amendment or provision cannot cure a procedural defect that fundamentally affects the rights of a party unless the party had been duly notified and given an opportunity to defend their rights. In the present case, the retrospective validation under Section 12 of the 2020 Amendment cannot cure the procedural defects, as the petitioner was denied notice and a fair hearing.

¶39

1 (2009) 6 SCC 564

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:35958 WP No. 17980 of 2024

¶42

In light of these settled principles of law and the

¶43

fact that the petitioner was never notified of the proceedings, the retrospective application of Section 12 of the 2020 Amendment cannot be used to validate the impugned order of forfeiture. Therefore, this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to quash the impugned order, as it suffers from serious legal infirmities and violates the fundamental principles of natural justice. The order is thus bad in law and cannot be saved by Section 12 of the 2020 Amendment. The Assistant Commissioner’s actions, in effect, improperly extended the scope of enquiry to a property owned by the petitioner, despite there being no basis for doing so, rendering the order legally unsound.

¶44