The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a neighbor challenging a Karnataka Appellate Tribunal order that set aside an Assistant Commissioner's decision confiscating land. The Court held the petitioner lacked locus-standi as he is neither an owner nor an interested party in the subject land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO.81876/2013(LR)
BETWEEN:
SAMUEL S/O. IMMANUEL GOWDER, AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: S.P.G.CHURCH COMPOUND, RIVINGTON ROAD, BETAGERI, TQ: GADAG – 582 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka
DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13.09.2013
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R3; R1 IS SERVED; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 IS DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 13.09.2013)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN “COMMON JUDGMENT” DATED: 22.07.2013, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - BANGALORE, -RESPONDENT NO.4 IN APPLICATION NO.357/2010 AND APPLICATION NO.1089/2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-T. CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, GADAG IN KLR/AP/156/2008-09 DATED: 28/04/2010, VIDE ANNEXURE-N SINCE THE SAID ORDER IS THE CONSIDERED ORDER BASED ON THE SOUND PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND NATURAL JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this court for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 22.07.2013, passed by respondent No.4, produced as per Annexure-T and restoration of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag dated 28.04.2010 produced as per Annexure-N.
Sri.G.N.Narasammanavar for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the land in question. The petitioner is their neighbour. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 purchased the land described in the petition under registered sale deed and started obstructing the petitioner from using his property. Petitioner had filed suit in O.S.No.125/2006 for declaration and for injunction, against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since the respondents continued to obstruct the right of way to use the land by
the petitioner, and since the acquisition of land by the respondents is in contravention of Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as it was before amendment (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the petitioner given representation to the Deputy Tahasildar, Betageri, upon which a proceeding was initiated as provided under law. The petitioner was also a party in the said proceedings. The revenue inspector after holding enquiry cancelled the mutation as per M.E.No.155/05-06 standing in the name of respondent No.1. The Tahasildar, Gadag recommended the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, Gadag to take suitable action
under Section 79-A of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, accordingly initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner and respondents. The Assistant Commissioner has passed the order as per Annexure-N holding that acquisition of the land by respondent No.1 is in contravention of Section 79-A of the Act and therefore, the sale transaction was cancelled and the land in question was ordered to be taken over by the
government. Impugning the said order, respondents have challenged the same before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Where the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 was allowed and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the order Annexure-T.
The petitioner is not the owner nor he is interested in the land in question. He is just a neighbor, who filed the complaint before the Deputy Tahasildar. Therefore, he has no locus-standi to maintain the petition. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Perused the materials on record.
respondent No.1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 & 2 are obstructing the petitioner for making use of the land, which was purchased by respondent No.1 under the registered sale deed. It is alleged that there is violation of Section 79-A of the Act and a representation in that regard appears to have been filed before the Deputy Tahasidlar. On the basis of the same, the proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 and the Assistant Commissioner passed an order as per Annexure-N ordering to confiscate the property to the Government. In view of the contravention of Section 79-A
of the Act, the said order was set aside by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by passing Annexure-T.
is filed challenging the impugned order solely on the ground that there is violation of Section 79-A of the Act,
there are no materials in support of such contentions. Hence, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
SD/JUDGE
MBS,EM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a neighbor who filed a complaint regarding land obstruction has locus-standi to challenge an appellate order setting aside a confiscation order.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has no proprietary interest in the land and no materials to support the alleged violation of the Act.
SAMUEL S/O. IMMANUEL GOWDER
SMT. PREMA W/O. SHASHIKANT SANKANNAVAR
SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA VENKTAPUR
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GADAG SUB-DIVISION
THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
