Allowed

Smt. G. Sheela v. the Govt of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/23378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner challenged a forfeiture of agricultural land under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Holding that the 2020 Ordinance omitted those sections with retrospective effect from 01.03.1974 and abated pending cases under Section 13(2), the High Court quashed the forfeiture and directed mutation of the land back to her name.

What did the court decide?

Forfeiture order dated 16.08.2013 declared abated and quashed; respondents directed to delete State's name from Column 9 of RTC and mutate petitioner's name within three months; no costs.

Smt. G. Sheela Vs the Govt of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.23378 OF 2024 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.G.SHEELA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE K. GURUMURTHY NO.73, (OLD NO.1563) 6^TH MAIN ROAD E-BLOCK, 2^ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU -560 010

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶16

THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE KOLLEGAL KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.01.2023 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.53/2014 BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRODUCED AS ANNX-D AND ALLOW THE APPEAL NO.53/2013-14 DTD. 20.01.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-C AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.

¶23

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order of forfeiture dated 16.08.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶25

whereby the petitioner’s property was forfeited under

¶26

the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as "the Act").

¶27

The petitioner, aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 came into force on 30.07.2020. By this Ordinance, Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C of the Act were omitted. Section 13 of the Ordinance included a saving clause, indicating that all pending cases concerning these sections stood abated.

¶28

Factual Background:

¶29

The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land

¶30

bearing Sy. No.289/B measuring 0.84 cents and Sy. No.289/C measuring 1.72 acres situated at

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶33

Mudigunda Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Kollegal Taluk and the said land was subject to forfeiture under the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, passed the impugned order on 16.08.2013 invoking the said provisions and ordered the forfeiture of the petitioner’s land in favor of the State. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, challenging the legality of the forfeiture order.

¶34

During the pendency of the appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 came into force on 30.07.2020. The Ordinance omitted Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C of the Act, thereby removing the statutory provisions under which the forfeiture had been ordered.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶36

The Appellate Tribunal, while considering the

¶37

appeal, dismissed the same on the ground that, in view of the 2020 amendment, the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B stood abated, and no further action could be taken. This dismissal was primarily based on the saving clause under Section 13 of the Ordinance, which provided that all cases pending on the date of publication of the Ordinance relating to these omitted sections would abate.

¶38

The petitioner contends that the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, which retrospectively came into force from 01.03.1974, rendered the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the principal Act void ab initio . It was further argued that the Appellate Tribunal correctly applied the law in dismissing the appeal as abated. Therefore, the impugned order of forfeiture by Respondent No.2 dated 16.08.2013 is liable to be quashed.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶40

This Court examined the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, particularly Sections 5, 6, and 7, which specifically omitted Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C from the principal Act. The omission of these sections had retrospective effect from 01.03.1974. Consequently, all proceedings initiated under these sections, including the one against the petitioner, stood abated.

¶41

This Court also took note of Section 13(2) of the Ordinance, which clearly provided that all cases pending on the date of the publication of the Ordinance pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C stood abated. The forfeiture order passed by respondent No.2 was rendered ineffective due to the abatement of the proceedings.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶44

Conclusion:

¶45

In light of the retrospective application of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, the forfeiture proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act stand abated. The impugned order dated 16.08.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner is therefore null and void.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The writ petition is allowed.

¶49

The impugned order of forfeiture dated 16.08.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 – the Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-B, is declared abated and is accordingly quashed.

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024

¶51

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to delete the name of the State of Karnataka from Column No.9 of the Record of Rights (RTC) pertaining to the petitioner’s land. The name of the petitioner shall be mutated in the RTC in accordance with law.

¶52

This exercise shall be completed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶53

No order as to costs.

¶54

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶55

NBM

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Smt. G. Sheela v. the Govt of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G. Sheela v. the Govt 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

Anitha R Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

V S Thimmegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Indresh H N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sandesh v P Vs the State of Karnataka