Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Pavithra D vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2024
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1506
WP No. 28881 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No. 28881 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. PAVITHRA D.,
W/O JAIPRAKASH B. C.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT SBM ROAD, MADDUR,
MANDYA 571 428.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSHA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001.
Digitally signed
by VINUTHA B
S 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Location: High MANDYA DISTRICT,
Court of
Karnataka MANDYA 571 401.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DIVISION,
MANDYA 571 401.
4. THE TASILDAR
MANDYA DIVISION,
MANDYA 571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SESHU V., HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1506
WP No. 28881 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22/11/2016 PASSED BY THE R3 AT
ANNEXURE-F. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO
RECONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH BY ISSUING NOTICE AND
ALSO TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE ALL NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE R3.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned HCGP takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
22.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner,
Mandya Division, Mandya 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.
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
NC: 2024:KHC:1506
remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner
for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the aggrieved person.
4. Learned HCGP 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.
5. It is the contention of the learned HCGP 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 Act will apply
NC: 2024:KHC:1506
and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by
the Assistant Commissioner.
6. 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.
7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 22.11.2016 passed in case
No.LRF/40/2015-16 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
matter is remitted 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 78-B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment
No.56 of 2020.
NC: 2024:KHC:1506
8. The petitioner shall appear before the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 07th February
2024, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant
Commissioner.
Ordered accordingly.
Learned HCGP is permitted to file Memo of
Appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VBS
