Allowed

Sri. Basavaraju v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024WP/34901/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the order confirming forfeiture of agricultural land by deleting the petitioners' name upon violation of Section 79A. The court held that pending proceedings abated after the State Government omitted the impugned sections via the 2020 Ordinance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and appeal order are quashed; the Tahsildar is directed to restore the petitioners' name in revenue records within four weeks.

Sri. Basavaraju Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:265 WP No. 34901 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34901 OF 2018 (LR-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. BASAVARAJU S/O SHIVANAGAPPA MELMURI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF BYADGI VILLAGE,

¶8

BYADGI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581110.

¶9

SRI. MALLIKARJUNA

¶10

S/O SHIVANAGAPPA MELMURI,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF BYADGI VILLAGE,

¶11

BYADGI, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581 110.

¶12

3.00. SRI. MAHANTESHA S/O SHIVANAGAPPA MELMURI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF BYADGI VILLAGE,

¶13

BYADGI, HAVERI DISTRICT-581110.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI A P MURARI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶17

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.11 11:23:47 +0530

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE, HAVERI-581110.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE) HAVERI TALUK, DISTRICT HAVERI-581110.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI V S KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶23

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:-SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL NO.766/2013 DATED 13.3.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND RESTORE THE LAND TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO.115/2 OF KAJJARI VILLAGE, HAVERI TALUK.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC-D:265 WP No. 34901 of 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The respondent No.1 initiated the proceedings against the petitioners for having purchased the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.115/2A measuring 7 acres 20 guntas situated at Kajargi village, Haveri Taluk, in violation of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The respondent No.1 in exercise of power under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act declared that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners as null and void, and forfeited the land in favour of the government, against which, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.766/2013. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the respondent No.1. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶29

As of today, the lawful possession of the subject agricultural land has not been taken by the government in light of the order passed by the respondent No.1. During pendency of the petition, the State Government by Act 56/2020 omitted Section 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act. Section 12 of the Act, 2020 deals with savings and it states that notwithstanding the omission of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C w.e.f 1^st day of March, 1974, all cases finally disposed of before the promulgation of the 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 Section 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated.

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC-D:265 WP No. 34901 of 2018

¶31

¶32

Therefore, the lawful possession of subject land having not been taken by the Government, the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 culminating in passing the order under Section 83 of the Land Reforms Act stands abated. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned order dated 13.3.2018 in Appeal No.766/2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, vide Annexure-E and the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-B stand quashed.

¶36

iii) The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to restore the name of the petitioners in the revenue records after deleting the name of the government in respect of the subject land within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

BKM

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103

Sri. Basavaraju v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Basavaraju 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

Harihar Rao S/O. Raghunathrao Patwardhan Vs the Land Tribunal

Guru Siddeshwara Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs Smt Sumangala

Akki Alur Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Lmcs Infra Holdings Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Khajesab S/O. Ummarsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallawwa W/O Chandrappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka