Voilet W/O Late Remand Lopis Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Voilet W/O Late Remand Lopis Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14065 WP No. 113090 of 2014

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 113090 OF 2014 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VOILET W/O LATE REMAND LOPIS, AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O. HIREMATH, KASARGOD POST, HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR.

TAHSILDAR,

HONNAVAR TALUK, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE TO WRIT TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION NO.LND/DSR/626/86-87 DATED 09.01.1987, ISSUED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTEER PART 9B DATED 15.01.1987 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ALSO THE ORDER NO.LND/1/CR-3/2013-14 DATED 31.05.2014, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.11.2013 AND 30.05.2014, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14065 WP No. 113090 of 2014

HC-KAR

ANNEXURE-C AND D DIRECTING THEM TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORD OF RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY BEARING SURVEY NO.52/1, MEASURING 2 ACRE 12 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MANKI VILLAGE, HONNAVAR TALUK, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 09.01.1987

marked at Annexure - A and also the order dated 31.05.2014 marked at Annexure - B. It is noticed from Annexure - A that the order is dated 05.09.1988 and not 09.01.1987 as mentioned in the prayer.

The property bearing Sy.No.52/1 of Kasargod Village, Taluk Honnavar is confiscated in favour of the State alleging violation of Section 76B of The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961').

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the order confiscating the aforementioned land was not communicated to the petitioner's husband, who was the owner of the property. It is his submission that the petitioner's husband expired on 23.09.2012 and when petitioner made an

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14065 WP No. 113090 of 2014

HC-KAR

attempt to get her name entered in the property records as a successor of her husband, she came to know the property is confiscated in favour of the State. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application to restore her name in the property records. The Deputy Commissioner vide endorsement dated 31.05.2014 marked at Annexure - B declined the petitioner's request on the premise that the land is already confiscated for violation of Sections 79A and B of the Act, 1961.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner's husband is not in dispute and same is marked at Annexure - E. It is his further submission that Sections 79 A and B of the Act, 1961 have been omitted with retrospective effect and this Court has held that omission has retrospective effect. Consequently purchasers whose lands have been confiscated on the alleged violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, 1961 as it stood prior to the amendment, are entitled to the rules as if there was no provision in the form of Section 79A and B of the Act, 1961.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14065 WP No. 113090 of 2014

HC-KAR

Learned Government Advocate would urge that impugned order at Annexure - A is passed in 1988 and the petition is not maintainable and same is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In addition to that it is also urged that since the petitioner's husband has purchased the property in contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of Act, 1961, the Deputy Commissioner rightly confiscated the land in favour of the State.

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

It is not in dispute that Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, 1961 was omitted by way of an amendment in the year 2020 and the Court has interpreted the said omission and has come to the conclusion that the omission is with retrospective effect. In other words, it is to be understood that the said provision was not in force at any point of time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure - A is not sustainable.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14065 WP No. 113090 of 2014

HC-KAR

It is also noticed from the report of the Tahsildar that the petition property is in possession of the petitioner. In addition to that, the State has not filed any statement of objections and has not produced any materials to show that the impugned order at Annexure - A is passed after issuing notice to the petitioner's husband.

Considering the materials on record, this Court is of the view that Annexure - A has to be quashed so also Annexure - B in terms of which the Deputy Commissioner has declined to restore the name of the petitioner. Since it is noticed that the petitioner is found to be in possession and since, it is also noticed that no notice is issued to the petitioner's husband before passing the impugned order, the contention relating to delay and laches is not acceptable.

10. Hence the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14065 WP No. 113090 of 2014

HC-KAR

(ii) Annexure - A dated 05.01.1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.1 is quashed.

(iii) Annexure - B dated 31.05.2014 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.1 is quashed.

(iv) The Deputy Commissioner is directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the property records.

(v) The compliance shall be made within three months from

the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 94