Sri R Prakash Vs the Assistant Commissioner

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED RECORDS AND ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY GRANTING FOLLOWING RELIEFS AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2016 PASSED BY THE R1 IN CASE NO. LRF/CR/230/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND ETC.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:34716 WP No. 23512 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for

¶25

all the respondents.

¶26

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in proceedings bearing No.LRF/CR/230/2015-16 dated 09.08.2016 at Annexure-A.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dated 16.08.2021 remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate points out from the impugned order that notice was indeed issued to the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34716 WP No. 23512 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

petitioner and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶32

Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any court/authority.

¶33

This Court had several occasions to consider such 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 Amending Act is required to be given to such petitioners. 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.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34716 WP No. 23512 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending

¶37

Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶38

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

¶39

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶42

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.

¶43

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 09.08.2016, the

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34716 WP No. 23512 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶47

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 22.09.2025 , without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶48

Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶50

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶51

rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri R Prakash v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Prakash v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri L Doreswamy, Vs the Tahasildar

Smt. Sarojamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Roshma Boban Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Chinnamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bogaiah Vs the State of Karnataka