Sri Mujahid Veer Singh Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 879 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

        WRIT PETITION NO.23490 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN

SRI MUJAHID VEER SINGH RATHOD
S/O LATE MOHAMMED YUSUFF RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.170, PRESTIGE O ZONE,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND FORUM MALL,
WHITEFIELD,BANGALORE-560077               ... PETITIONER

      (BY SRI.MUNI REDDY M N, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP BY SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
      M S BUILDING,BANGALORE-560001

2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
      TUBAGERE-DODDABALLAPURA ROAD,
      DODDABALLAPURA-561203

3.    THE TAHSILDAR
      NELAMANGALA TALUK,
      NELAMANGALA-562123                  ...RESPONDENTS

      (BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
                                 2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.17.2.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY MR
NO.H1/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R-3 DTD.6.5.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-J

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR             ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2017

passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-

Division, Doddaballapura, 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 17.02.2017

passed in LRF:SR(Ne):221/2007-08 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 4th February, 2022,

without waiting for further notice from the Assistant

Commissioner.

7. If revenue entries have been altered pursuant to the

impugned order dated 17.02.2017, the same shall be restored in

favour of the petitioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KLY