Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 7 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.201168/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.201168/2022 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O GURUPADAPPA PANSALE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O JANWADA,
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR-585401.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.VEERANI V.NANDI FOR SRI. RAVI.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR-585 401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR-585401.
2 W.P.No.201168/2022
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
TAHASIL OFFICE,
BIDAR-585 401.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
MIRZAPUR (TAJ),
TAHASIL OFFICE, BIDAR
TQ. & DIST: BIDAR-585401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHOJEGOUDA T.KOLLER, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
06.02.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY
BEARING FILE NO.REV/LND/CR-06/2019-20 AS AT ANNEXURE-G,
INSOFAR RELATES TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN
SY.NO.39/2 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 01 ACRE 36 GUNTAS
REFERRED TO AT SL.NO.43, SITUATED AT MIRZAPUR (T) VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST: BIDAR, AS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the second
respondent vide Annexure-G insofar as it relates to the land
belonging to the petitioner bearing Sy.No.39/2 measuring 1
acre 36 guntas situated at Mirzapur (T) Village, Bidar Taluk
and District and also to direct the respondents to restore the
revenue entries in column Nos.9 and 12 in the name of the
petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute
owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No. 39/2
measuring 2 acres 4 guntas situated at Mirzapur (T) Village,
Bidar Taluk and District. The revenue entries in respect of
the aforesaid land stood in the name of the petitioner. When
the matter stood thus, the petitioner received a show cause
notice vide Annexure-D calling upon the petitioner to produce
the order of conversion since the petitioner was utilizing the
aforesaid agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose. On
receipt of such notice dated 4.5.2019, the petitioner has
given a reply on 14.05.2019 vide Annexure-E stating that he
intended to use the aforesaid land for the purpose of dairy
farming and for no other purpose, the said land was utilized.
Thereafterwards, the impugned order dated 06.02.2020 has
been passed by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner
forfeiting the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner on
the ground that the petitioner has utilized the aforesaid
agricultural land for the purpose of forming an unauthorized
layout. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before
this court.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has utilized the land in
question only for dairy farming and therefore, it cannot be
said that the petitioner has used his property for non-
agricultural purpose. She submits that the reply given by the
petitioner to the show cause notice has not been properly
appreciated by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner before
passing the impugned order. She has relied upon the
judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in
W.P.No.202042/2021 disposed of on 5th January 2022 in
support of her case and contends that in identical
circumstances wherein the land was used for poultry farming,
this court has allowed the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the
respondents submits that the order impugned would prima
facie show that the agricultural land of the petitioner was
being utilized to form an unauthorized layout and therefore,
the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned
order. He submits that the judgment of the Co-ordinate
Bench of this court in W.P.No.202042/2021 would, therefore,
not be applicable to the facts of this case and accordingly
prays to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the materials
available on record.
6. The order impugned passed by the second
respondent/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-G is
relating to a series of lands belonging to various persons and
the very same order was questioned in W.P.No.202042/2021
insofar as it relates to the petitioner therein. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this court in the said case appreciating the
fact that the land which was the subject matter of the said
writ petition was utilized for the purpose of poultry farming
has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed the
impugned order insofar as it relates to the land belonging to
the petitioner therein and has directed the respondent
authorities to restore the revenue entries in the record of
rights in favour of the petitioner therein.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has
strenuously contended that even the present case is covered
by the said judgment, she is not able to point out that her
land has been used for the purpose of dairy farming by
producing any documents. Even in the reply given by her to
the show cause notice, she has only stated that she intends
to use the land in question for dairy farming, but she has not
stated that the said land was being utilized for dairy farming.
On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner while passing
the order impugned has specifically stated that the petitioner
has utilized the land in question for the purpose of forming
an unauthorized layout. However, from the perusal of the
order impugned, it is seen that the said order is a common
order passed in respect of series of land belonging to various
persons and the objections filed by the petitioner to the show
cause notice appears to have not been considered by the
Deputy Commissioner before passing the impugned order.
Further, the order impugned does not reflect any spot
inspection held by the competent authority for the purpose of
coming to a conclusion that the land in question was utilized
for non-agricultural purpose as stated in the impugned order.
Therefore, the order impugned is prima facie erroneous and
it is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the following order:
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated
06.02.2020 passed by the second respondent/Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexure-G insofar as it relates to the
land belonging to the petitioner bearing Sy.No.39/2
measuring 1 acre 36 guntas situated at Mirzapur (T) Village,
Bidar Taluk and District, is hereby quashed. The
respondent/authorities are directed to restore the name of
the petitioner in the Record of Rights of the land in question.
However, this order will not come in the way of the second
respondent/Deputy Commissioner in passing a fresh order
after holding an enquiry in accordance with law and after
holding a spot inspection of the land in question to find out
whether the petitioner has utilized the land in question for
the purpose of forming an unauthorized layout and
thereafterwards pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
CT: SMP
