Sri. N. Venkatesh, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

SRI. N. VENKATESH, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NO. G-8351, 4TH CROSS, GUTTALU COLONY, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB DIVISION, MANDYA, MANDYA DIST - 571 401.

¶16

THE TAHASILDHAR SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK., HCGP)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE R1 PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN LRF NO. 338/2014-15

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:5874 WP No. 22524 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

PASSED ON 04/08/2015 SAME IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAYING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN LRF NO. 338/2014-15 PASSED ON 04/08/2015 SAME IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This writ petition was filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the respondent – Assistant Commissioner in LRF No.338/201415 in terms of Sections 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:5874 WP No. 22524 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader 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.

¶35

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

¶36

This Court had several occasions to consider

¶37

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

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5874 WP No. 22524 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5874 WP No. 22524 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

¶46

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) The writ petition is disposed of .

¶49

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 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in Karnataka (Second Amendment) Act No.56 of 2020.

¶50

iii) If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the impugned order dated 04.08.2015, the same shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

¶51

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5874 WP No. 22524 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 20^th February, 2026 , without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

¶54

Ordered accordingly.

¶55

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶56

JT/CT: JL

Sri. N. Venkatesh, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. Venkatesh, 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Rajanna D K @ D K Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Munichowdamma Vs State of Karnataka

Shri K N Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. M. Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka