Smt Roshma Boban Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH, IN NO.LRF.83(BE) 137/13-14 DATED 27-02-2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; ISSUE A DIRECTION FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34301 WP No. 22603 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

¶33

notice for the respondents.

¶34

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of

¶35

forfeiture dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North under the provisions of

¶36

Section 83 for violation of the provisions contained in Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶37

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶38

this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice

¶39

to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34301 WP No. 22603 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021

¶43

remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

¶44

Learned Additional Government Advocate points out from the impugned order that notice was indeed issued to the petitioner and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶45

This Court had several occasions to consider such

¶46

cases, where writ petitions are filed long after the provisions contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C were omitted from the statute book in terms of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020. It is the consistent opinion of this Court that if at any rate, the Assistant Commissioner, after forfeiting the land has not disposed of the same in accordance with law then the benefit of the saving clause contained in Section 12 of the

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:34301 WP No. 22603 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Amending Act is required to be given to such petitioners.

¶51

The Assistant Commissioner is therefore, required to ascertain, whether the declared excess lands or forfeited lands still remain with the State Government or has been granted to third parties. If the lands have been granted to third party, then sub-section(1) of Section 12 of the amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings have reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶52

Having considered the submission of the learned

¶53

Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts

¶54

and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the co-ordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34301 WP No. 22603 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶58

following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶61

ii) The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

¶62