Jotiba Omanna Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Jotiba Omanna Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners (declaration of abatement refused); operative direction issued to respondent No.2 to dispose off the pending appeal in a time-bound manner, atleast within six months from communication of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire ULC proceedings initiated by the competent authority (Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum) and the State Government stand abated under Section 4 of the ULC Repealed Act, 1999. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court declined to declare abatement of the ULC proceedings: in view of the savings clause (Section 3, especially Section 3(1)(a)) relied on by respondent No.2 — vesting of vacant land under Section 10(3) whose possession has been taken over by the State Government is unaffected by repeal, and the taking-over procedure is stated to be complete — the Court found no reason to declare that the proceedings get abated.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's appeal is admittedly pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum; the petitioners must seek their remedy in those pending appeal proceedings.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose off the pending appeal in a time-bound manner, atleast within six months from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Urban Land Ceiling — abatement — writ petition (WP No.11042 of 2005 (ULC-)), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, M.G. Uma, J., 10.03.2025: L.Rs. of the deceased holder sought declaration that the entire ULC proceedings (order Annexure-B dt. 05.06.1986 of the Special Deputy Commissioner finding 8130.05 sq.meters of excess land; appeal dismissed for default on 07.11.1988; default-dismissal quashed and appeal remanded by order in W.P.No.25303/1992 dt. 08.10.1996, Annexure-E) stood abated under Section 4 of the ULC Repealed Act, 1999, or alternatively a direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum to decide the pending appeal (Annexure-F). Held: no ground to declare abatement — savings clause Section 3(1)(a) of the Repealed Act preserves vesting of vacant land under Section 10(3) whose possession has been taken over by the State Government; respondent No.2 asserted the taking-over procedure was complete and a notification with notice was issued; the remedy of the petitioners lies in the pending appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Petition DISMISSED; respondent No.2 directed to dispose of the appeal atleast within six months from communication of the order.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

WRIT PETITION NO. 11042 OF 2005 (ULC-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JOTIBA OMANNA JADHAV SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. (SINCE DIED ON 17.03.2010 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2018)

1A. SMT. VITHABAI W/O. JOTIBHA JADHAV AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

1B. VIMAL D/O. JOTIBHA JADHAV AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

1C. SUDHA W/O. DATTARAM SITAP AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

1D. TANAJI S/O. JOTIBHA JADHAV AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

SINCE DIED ON 13.08.2020 CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.10.2022)

1D1. SMT. SUMITHRA W/O.TANAJI JADHAV AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOJE MAKER,

1D2. SRI. HEMANTH S/O. TANAJI JADHAV A

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, BOTH ARE R/O. DOOR NO.643, RAJAHAMSA GALLI, ANGOL TQ: DIST: BEALGAVI.

1E. SAMBHAJI S/O. JOTIBHA JADHAV AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

1F. SHIVAJI S/O. JOTIBHA JADHAV AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. ALL ARE R/O. RAJAHANSA GALLI ANGOL, BELAGAVTI.

1G. SHOBHA W/O. YALLAPPA MARVE AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BASAVANA GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR P1(B-F) & P1(D1) AND P1 (D2)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI.

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER ULC ACT, REP BY SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI.

THE TAHSILDAR BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI.

THE PRESIDENT NEELAKANTESHWARA VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BAILHONGAL.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; R6 THE PRESIDENT NEELAKANTESHWARA VIDYA VARDHAKA SANGHA, BAILHONGAL)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY I.E., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM AND STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONDENT NO.1, ABATED UNDER SECTION 4 OF URBAN LAND (CEILING REGULATION) REPEALED ACT 1999 AND ALTERNATIVELY IF THIS HON’BLE COURT COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, THE PROCEEDING OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 NOT AUTOMATICALLY ABATED, THEN THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DIVISION COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM MAY BE DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OF APPEAL NO.RB/ULC/AP/98-99-ANNEXURE-F IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.25303/92 DATED 08.10.1996 ANNEXURE-E FOR FRESH ENQUIRY ON MERITS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking declaration that the entire proceedings initiated by the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum and the State Government-respondent No.1 Is abated as per Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repealed Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Repealed Act”). Alternatively, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the proceedings pending before respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not automatically abated, to direct respondent No.2-the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum to dispose off the Appeal No.RB/ULC/AP/4/98-99 produced as per Annexure-F in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.25303/1992 vide order dated 08.10.1996, produced as per Annexure-E.

Heard Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioners No.1(B-F) and P1(D1) & P1(D2) and Sri. T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and respondent No.6 is served but remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the ULC Act is already abated in view of the ULC Repealed Act, 1999. Whereas, it is the contention of learned Additional Government Advocate that, pursuant to passing of the order as per Annexure-B by the Special Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority under ULC Act, excess land is already taken over by the Government in accordance with law. Therefore, question of abatement of the proceedings does not arise.

The Special Deputy Commissioner being the competent authority under ULC Act, passed the order as per Annexure-B on 05.06.1986, notifying the petitioner that he is in possession of the 8130.05 sq.meters of excess land, and the same is to be surrendered to the Government. The same was challenged by the petitioners before the Divisional Commissioner-respondent No.2. But the same came to be dismissed for default as per order dated 07.11.1988. The said order was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.25303/1992, which came to be allowed vide order

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

dated 08.10.1996 produced as per Annexure-E, quashing the order of dismissing the appeal for default, and the matter was remitted back to the Divisional Commissioner for fresh disposal of the appeal on merits, after notice to the petitioner.

It is stated that, said proceedings are still pending before the Divisional Commissioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that the entire proceedings get abated in view of Section 4 of the ULC Repealed Act, 1999. But it is the contention of respondent No.2 that in view of the Savings Clause i.e. Section 3 of ULC Repealed Act, the proceedings do not get abated as the possession of the properties was already taken in accordance with law. The statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 discloses that a notification is already issued. Pursuant to the notification, notice was issued. As per Section 3(1)(a), the vesting of any vacant land under Sub-Section (3) of Section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government, the Repeal of the Principal Act shall not effect. When a specific contention is taken by respondent No.2 that the procedure for taking over possession of the land is

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4501 WP No. 11042 of 2005

complete by filing the objection as contemplated under law, I do not find any reason to declare that the proceedings get abated. Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum and therefore, the petitioners have to seek their remedy in the said proceedings. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is dismissed .

(ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose off the appeal in a time-bound manner atleast within six months from the date of communication of this order.

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4