Sri Mohammed Haniff Vs State of Karnataka

SRI ANWAR PASHA S/O. LATE ABDUL KADAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.12/68D8A1 HATTY ROAD, NELLIYALAM VILLAGE PANDALUR TALUK, NILGIRIS DISTRICT TAMIL NADU – 643 233.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SMT. B. V. VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:35607 WP No. 623 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M. S. BUILDINGS DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI K. P. YOGANNA, A.G.A., FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PROCEEDINGS NO. LRF (79A - 79B) CR 72/2018-19 AT ANNEXURE - D TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This writ petition was filed by the petitioner being

¶31

aggrieved of the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner in No.LRF (79A –

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:35607 WP No. 623 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

79B) CR 72/2018-19 in terms of Sections 79A and 79B of

¶36

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶37

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 co-ordinate 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:35607 WP No. 623 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

This Court had several occasions to consider

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35607 WP No. 623 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant

¶50

Commissioner.

¶51

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 coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioners herein.

¶52

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶53

following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶56

ii) The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioners including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:35607 WP No. 623 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Land Reforms Act, 1961 in Karnataka (Second Amendment) Act No.56 of 2020.

¶61

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.01.2020, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioners.

¶62

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 29.09.2025 , without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶63

Ordered accordingly.

¶64

8. Learned Additional Government Advocate is

¶65

permitted to file his memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

¶66

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶67

KLY

Sri Mohammed Haniff v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Haniff v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt. Kanthamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Mayanna Gowda H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K. C. Manjunath Vs the Asst. Commissioner

Dr G Indu Varshini Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri R Somashekara Reddy, Vs the State of Karnataka