Karnataka High Court
Liaquath Ali Khan vs The Assistant Commissioner on 3 February, 2022
Bench: R Devdas
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.6389 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1 LIAQUATH ALI KHAN
S/O SADATH ALI KHAN
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT "BARKATH"
NO.1582/2, SATHNOOR ROAD
CHENNAPATNA - 571 401
2 ANJANA M. THOMAS
W/O TILAK THOMAS
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.32
KASTURBA ROAD CROSS
NEAR BRITISH LIBRARY
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU 560 001
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.H V DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101
3. SATHISH HEGDE
S/O R.T.RAMANNA
2
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.G-8
PALACE ARCADE APARTMENT
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 001
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 AND 2,
R3-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-S DATED 25.07.2015
PASSED IN CASE NO.LRF/79AB/CR/83/2006-07 ON THE
FILE OF R-1 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate is
directed to take notice for all the respondents.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
25.07.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Chickaballapura Taluk, Chickaballapura, under the
provisions of Section 83 for violation of the provisions in
Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act, 1961.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that this is a case where the impugned order of
forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant
Commissioner without notice to the petitioners. 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 petitioners
and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioners
did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner.
4. Respondent No.3 is the previous vendor, from
whom the petitioners have purchased the land in
question. Respondent No.3 is a formal party.
Therefore, in the final analysis, respondent No.3 will not
have any say in the matter, in view of the subsequent
development.
5. 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 petitioners herein.
6. Consequently the impugned order dated
25.07.2015 passed in L.R.F:79/AB/CR/83/2006-07 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the first 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 78-B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment
No.56 of 2020.
7. The petitioners shall appear before the first
respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 23rd February
2022, without waiting for further notice from the
Assistant Commissioner.
8. If revenue entries have been altered pursuant
to the impugned order dated 25.07.2015, the same
shall be restored in favour of the petitioners.
Learned AGA is permitted to file memo of
appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rv
