Smt C S Suchithra vs The Assistant Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 45 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

          THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

         WRIT PETITION NO.24309/2021 (LR)

BETWEEN

SMT C S SUCHITHRA
W/O. LATE. T. RAMAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC. HOUSE WIFE AND AGRICULTURSIT,
R/O. AT NO. ANASOSALU VILLAGE,
CHIKKABALI POST,
KERAGODU HOBLI, (BASARALU),
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571446        ....PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVAIAH C, ADVOCATE)


AND

1.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       MANDYA SUB DIVISION,
       MANDYA,
       MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571401

2.     THE TAHSILDAR
       MADDUR TALUK OFFICE,
       MADDUR TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT 571428        ....RESPONDENTS

       (SRI. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)
                               2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.02.2017 IN
CASE OF LRF.NO.70/2015-16 PASSED BY THE R1 - THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB DIVISION,
MANDYA ANNEXURE-D 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

14.02.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,

Mandya Sub-Division, Mandya, 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

14.02.2017 passed in L.R.F No.70/2015-16 is hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the

first 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 first

respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 24th January

2022, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant

Commissioner.

7. If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to

the impugned order dated 14.02.2017, the same shall be

restored in favour of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and

accordingly the same stands disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE

JT/-