Allowed

Vasu Bangera v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/26320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Forfeiture order under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act challenged after the 2020 Amendment retrospectively omitted those sections. Relying on the Madhukanta Patadia ruling that such proceedings abate, the High Court quashed the forfeiture.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 23.06.2020 of the Assistant Commissioner quashed; forfeiture of petitioner's property under Sections 79A/79B annulled.

Vasu Bangera Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39077 WP No. 26320 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.26320 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VASU BANGERA S/O SOMAPPA BANGERA AGED 59 YEARS R/AT ARIBAIL HOUSE KADAMBAR VARKADY MANJESHWAR TALUK KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.ABISHEK MARLA M J, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 575001

¶14

TAHSILDAR MANGALURU TALUK MANGALURU - 575001

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.HARISH A.S, AGA)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39077 WP No. 26320 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23/06/2020 PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE (R2) IN PROCEEDING NO.CDS.L.R.Y.S.R.30/19-20 (ANNEXURE-A) 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

The petitioner has challenged the order of forfeiture

¶23

dated 23.06.2020 passed by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, under proceedings No. CDS:L.R.Y.S.R:30/19-20, as per Annexure-A.

¶24

The order was passed under the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). However, the petitioner argues that the subsequent amendments introduced through Act 56 of 2020, particularly the omission of Sections 79A and 79B, render the forfeiture

¶25

order unsustainable.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:39077 WP No. 26320 of 2023

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶29

the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondents.

¶30

The petitioner submits that he had filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) challenging the forfeiture order. However, in light of the 2020 Amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which came into force on 01.03.1974, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, contending that the very foundation of the forfeiture order no longer holds valid due to the omission of Sections 79A and 79B.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in SMT.MADHUKANTA PATADIA AND OTHERS V.

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

¶33

(WP NO.147188/2020) , where the Court, while interpreting the 2020 Amendment, held that all proceedings initiated under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act stand abated and transactions covered under these

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39077 WP No. 26320 of 2023

¶35

sections are saved. The petitioner also submits that the writ petition is filed within the prescribed period of limitation and that the cause of action to challenge the forfeiture order survives.

¶36

The learned AGA argues that the forfeiture order was passed in compliance with the provisions that existed at the time and that the amendment should not retrospectively affect the proceedings already initiated.

¶37

The Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Act 56 of 2020), introduced significant changes to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Among these changes was the omission of Sections 79A and 79B, which previously imposed restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land by certain categories of persons. These amendments were given retrospective effect from 01.03.1974, as explicitly stated in the 2020 Amendment.

¶38

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the aforementioned Smt.Madhukanta Patadia case and other

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39077 WP No. 26320 of 2023

¶40

similar cases, has consistently interpreted the amendment to mean that all proceedings initiated under Sections 79A and 79B, including orders of forfeiture, abate from the date of omission. Furthermore, any transaction entered into during the operation of the now-omitted sections is deemed valid and saved by the Amendment.

¶41

In the present case, the forfeiture order passed on 23.06.2020 under the omitted provisions of Sections 79A and 79B cannot be sustained in view of the Amendment, as such proceedings no longer have any legal basis.

¶42

Given that the petitioner has filed this writ petition within the period of limitation, and in light of the fact that the 2020 Amendment has retroactively abated all proceedings initiated under Sections 79A and 79B, the impugned order of forfeiture cannot stand.

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:39077 WP No. 26320 of 2023

¶46

¶47

(ii) The order dated 23.06.2020 passed by respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, in proceedings No.CDS.L.R.Y.S.R:30/19-20, as Annexure-A, is hereby quashed.

¶48

(iii) The forfeiture of the petitioner's property under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, stands annulled in light of the 2020 Amendment (Act 56 of 2020).

¶49

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶50

NBM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Vasu Bangera v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasu Bangera 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G R Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Muddurangamma Vs Gangamma

Sri. Srinivasa Babu Vs Smt. Radhamma

Avinash Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rukmini .P.H Vs the State of Karnataka