Allowed

Mr T S Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/21839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forfeiture proceedings under Sections 79(a), (b) and 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were challenged where the land had already been converted for residential use and conveyed before proceedings began. The High Court held the enquiry was without jurisdiction, quashed the forfeiture order and directed restoration of the respondent's name in the RTC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned forfeiture order dated 05.05.2015 (Annexure-H) quashed; respondents directed to delete Government's name and restore respondent No.5's name in RTC for Sy.No.73 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas.

Mr T S Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 21839 OF 2024 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. T.S. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1347/2, BEHIND GOVT. BOYS JUNIOR COLLEGE, VIDYANAGARA, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.

¶15

MR. PHILIP N. RODRIGUES, S/O MR. JOSEPH RODRIGUES,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶17

AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO. 22, C.K. GARDEN, ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 084.

¶18

MR. M. SOMASHEKAR, S/O MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 407, 2ND BLOCK, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2015 PASSED IN CASE NO. LRF SR (DEV)123/2008-09 BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNX-H AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is assailing the order of forfeiture dated 05.05.2015 passed by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶28

learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶29

The petitioner is assailing the order of forfeiture

¶30

passed under Section 79(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'Act'). The petitioner has purchased the site from one N.Srinivasa Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 09.10.2013. From the records, it is forthcoming that respondent No.4 purchased an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.73 measuring 1 acres 28 guntas, by Bychapura Village, Kasab Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 08.07.2005 vide Annexure-A. Respondent No.5/M.Somashekar in turn purchased the property from respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 03.07.2006. Respondent No.5/M.Somashekar pursuant to the sale obtained by him

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶33

in 2006, applied for conversion. The Deputy

¶34

Commissioner, vide order dated 30.07.2007, passed a conversion order and permitted respondent No.5 to use it for residential purposes..

¶35

Respondent No.3 vide official communication dated 07.01.2008, exercising power under Section 82 of the Act, reported the alienations made by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 and based on said official communication, respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings under Section 83 of the Act.

¶36

Before this Court proceeds further, some of the dates are relevant. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is noticed that the proceedings are initiated against respondent No.4, who had purchased this land on 08.07.2005. As on the date of the official communication sent by respondent No.3, the subject matter of the petition was already transferred to respondent No.5 under a registered sale deed dated 03.07.2006. Respondent No.5 obtained the conversion order on 30.07.2007.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶38

If these significant details are looked into, the official communication dated 07.01.2008, sent by respondent No.3 and consequent enquiry held by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner under Section 83 on the ground that there is a violation of provisions of Section 79(a) and (b) of the Act prima facie appear to be totally flowed. This Court has also noticed that the order under challenge pertains to Sy.No.79/1 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Chikkasanne village, while the petition land is situated at Bychapura village.

¶39

Having examined the records, this Court would find that, as on 07.01.2008, respondent No.4 was not the owner and he had already conveyed the land in question in favour of respondent No.5. As on 07.01.2008, the petition land was already converted. If the land was already converted to be utilized for residential purposes, the official communication sent by respondent No.3 invoking Section 82 of the Act is one without jurisdiction. Consequently, the enquiry conducted by respondent

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶41

No.2/Assistant Commissioner is also one without jurisdiction. The petitioner has purchased the site measuring 60x40 post conversion.

¶42

The order under challenge is also bad in law, as the subsequent purchaser respondent No.5/M.Somashekar was not notified before initiating proceedings under Section 83 of the Act. Even on this count, the order under challenge stands vitiated.

¶43

Be that as it may. The order under challenge pertains to Sy.No.79/1 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated in a totally different village. Even on this count, this Court is compelled to draw an inference that there is no proper application of mind and there is no proper enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act. It seems that respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner has not properly verified the records before passing an order. Though an enquiry is initiated against respondent No.4, the enquiry pertains to Sy.No.79/1. The order of forfeiture also pertains to Sy.No.79/1 and not Sy.No.73. Even on this

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39567 WP No. 21839 of 2024

¶45

count, the order under challenge is not sustainable and the

¶46

same is liable to be set aside.

¶47

The initiation of enquiry under Section 83 of the

¶48

Act is not maintainable for the reasons stated supra, as the land in question was already converted on 30.07.2007. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. For the forgoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶51

ii. The impugned order dated 05.05.2015, passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-H, is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶52

iii. The respondents are directed to delete the name of the Government and restore the name of respondent No.5 in RTC pertaining to Sy.No.73, measuring 1 acre 28 guntas.

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

HDK

Mr T S Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr T S Nagaraju 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

Smt. Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Muneer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Subbarayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkategowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lakshmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

N. Viswanath Vs the State of Karnataka