Sri Jay Krishna Raman vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1680 Kant

                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

         THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

       WRIT PETITION NO.16437 OF 2021 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JAY KRISHNA RAMAN,
S/O SRI. PULLIYOLATHIL KUNNI RAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT KHATA NO.165,
SHIVANANDA RICE MILLS COMPOUND,
NO.7/1A1, KUNIGAL BY-PASS ROAD,
VISHWESHARAPURA VILLAGE,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA G.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       M S BUILDING,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION,
       RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

3.   THE TAHASILDAR,
     MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI,
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.
                                ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)
                             2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2016
PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANENXURE-A IN LRF NO.(79)
A AND B (MA) 66/2013-14 RESPECTIVELY TO THE WRIT
PETITION AND ETC.

     THIS    WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

02.04.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,

Ramanagara Sub-Division, Ramanagara, under the

provisions of Section 83 for violation of the provisions in

Section 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms

Act, 1961.

2. 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.

3. Learned AGA 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.

4. 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.

5. Consequently the impugned order dated

02.04.2016 passed in L.R.F No.(79)A&B(MA)66/2013-14

is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is

remitted back to the second 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 78-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in

Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

6. The petitioner shall appear before the second

respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 23rd February

2022, without waiting for further notice from the

Assistant Commissioner.

7. If revenue entries have been altered pursuant

to the impugned order dated 02.04.2016, the same

shall be restored in favour of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

SD/-

JUDGE

rv