Karnataka High Court
G A Hemalatha vs The Assistant Commissioner on 8 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14497
WP No. 23069 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 23069 OF 2023 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. G.A. HEMALATHA,
D/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
2. K.N. JAYALAKSHMI,
D/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
3. SHOBHAVATHI,
D/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
4. A.R. KALPANA,
D/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
Digitally signed 5. C.D. MALATHI,
by
DHARMALINGAM D/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. P.R. SRINATH,
S/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
7. P.R. HARINATH,
S/O OF LATE P. RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO. E-904, JACARANDA BLOCK,
BRIGADE MILLENNIUM APARTMENTS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14497
WP No. 23069 of 2023
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. ROOPESHA, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. M.K. SANDEEP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORD IN NO.LRF(83)(H).41.97-98 FROM THE FILE
OF THE R1 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes
notice for the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:14497
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late P.
Ramachandraiah Shetty against whom the impugned
Order dated 21.09.1999 was passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru
under the provisions of Section 83 for violation of the
provisions contained in Sections 79-A and 79-B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
3. 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:14497
4. Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land
Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings
were pending before any court/authority.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate 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.
6. It is the contention of the learned Additional
Government Advocate that even as per the materials
available on record, after forfeiture, the excess lands have
been granted by the State Government to third parties.
The Assistant Commissioner is therefore required to
ascertain, whether the forfeited lands still remain with the
State Government or has been granted to third parties. If
the lands have been granted to third party, then sub-
section(1) of Section 12 of the amending Act will apply to
say that the proceedings have reached finality. Or
otherwise, sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending
NC: 2024:KHC:14497
Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared
as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.
7 . 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.
8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 21.09.1999 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru
in case No.LRF(83)(H):41:97-98 is hereby quashed and
set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 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 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka
Amendment No.56 of 2020.
NC: 2024:KHC:14497
9. The petitioner shall appear before the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 13.05.2024,
without waiting for further notice from the Assistant
Commissioner.
Ordered accordingly.
10. Learned Additional Government Advocate is
permitted to file Memo of Appearance within a period of
four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SNC
CT: BHK
