Karnataka High Court
Saleema Begum vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 6 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
WP No. 203444 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203444 OF 2023 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SALEEMA BEGUM
W/O SHAIK DAWOOD CHOUDHARY (QURESHI),
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NO. 3-9-85, MADINA MASJID,
KASBAWADI, YADGIRI CITY,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT: YADGIRI-585201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by REPRESENTATIVE THROUGH,
RENUKA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Location: M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
High Court
Of Karnataka 2. THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
POSTBOX NO. 5313, M.S.BUILDING,
1ST GATE, 2ND FLOOR, BENGALURU-560001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, YADGIR
SUB-DIVISION, YADGIRI-585201.
4. TAHASILDAR YADGIR
TALUKA AND DISTRICT YADGIR-585201.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
WP No. 203444 of 2023
5. BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
YADGIR-585201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER IN FILE NO. PÀA/¨sÀƸÀÄ50/3/30/2011-12
DATED 26-10-2012 PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
YADGIR I.E., RESPONDENT NO.3 HEREIN, THE CERTIFIED
COPY WHICH ANNEXURE-G. B) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT
DATED 05-07-2023 IN THE FILE NO. ¸À.PÀ.ªÉÄÃ.£Áå-PÀqv
À :À JSC/s¹Dgï-
1/2023 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIUBUNAL
BENGALURU, I.E., RESPONDENT NO.2 THE CERTIFIED COPY
WHICH IS ANNEXURE-N. OR C) DIRECT THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL
FILLED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, THE COPY WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-M.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.10.2012
passed by respondent No.3 in file No. PÀA/¨sÀƸÀÄ/50/3/30/2011-12 as
well as the endorsement dated 05.07.2023 in file No. ¸À:PÀ.ªÉÄÃ.£Áå-
PÀqÀvÀ-JSC/¹Dgï-1/2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
Bengaluru. Alternatively he has sought for a direction to the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal filed by
the petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land
bearing Sy.No.55 of Yadgir Taluk and District measuring 29
guntas having purchased it in terms of a sale deed dated
10.06.2011. The respondent No.4 addressed a letter dated
06.02.2012 to the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner
being a government servant had purchased the land without
obtaining permission and had mentioned her occupation as
agriculturist in the sale deed. The Block Education Officer of
Yadgir in terms of letter dated 27.04.2012 addressed to the
Assistant Commissioner, Yadgir had informed him that the
petitioner was employed at the Government High School
Hongera, Yadgir Taluka. Therefore, the respondent No.3
initiated proceedings under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act and passed the impugned order dated 26.10.2012.
The respondent No.3 directed forfeiture and resumption of the
land to the State Government and to enter the name of State
Government in the record of rights of the land in question. The
petitioner contends that the income of the petitioner from
sources other than agriculture was well within the exemption
limit then prescribed and therefore the Income Tax Returns for
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
the year 2006-07 was not filed. The petitioner contends that
she preferred an appeal challenging the order passed by the
respondent No.3 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal returned the appeal vide an
endorsement dated 05.07.2023 stating therein that the
Tribunal was directed not to entertain appeal filed U/s 118(2) of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 against orders passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officers in cases U/s 79-A and 79-B of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the respondent
No.3 as well as the endorsement issued by the Tribunal, the
petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
though respondent No.3 had passed order dated 26.10.2012
resuming the land to the State Government for violation of
Section 79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the revenue
authorities had not taken further steps to resume the land and
that the petitioner continued to be in possession and
occupation of the property bearing Sy.No.55 of Yadagir. He
further contends that in similar circumstances, a co-ordinate
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
Bench of this Court in W.P.No.102478/2023 held "In the instant
case though the order was passed by the 2nd respondent
forfeiting the subject land, however, the proceedings has not
been concluded since lawful possession of the subject lands
were not taken from the petitioner. Therefore, the lawful
possession of the subject lands having not been taken by the
Government, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2
stands abated." He also relied upon judgment of another
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17251/2023, where
it was held that "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." He then
relied upon the judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.200329/2023 C/w W.P.No.200480/2023,
where it was held that "The effect of deletion was considered by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.107318/2019
and W.P.No.103756/2021." Another Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.103756/2021 held as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
"Admittedly, the lawful possession of the
land is not taken by the government after
the order passed by the respondent No.3
effecting entries in respect of the land in
question in favour of the government for
violation of Section 79A and 79B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. By
Notification dated 13.07.2020, the
Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2020, Section 79A and 79B were
omitted retrospectively, and all the pending
proceedings automatically stands abated.
In view of omission of Section 79A and 79B
w.e.f. 01.03.1974, the impugned order
passed by the respondent No.3 stands
abated having regard to the fact that the
lawful possession of the land in question is
not taken over by the government."
5. He therefore prays that the petitioner be also
granted the said benefit as possession of the land in question is
not taken over.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate
submits that the impugned order was passed on 26.10.2012
and the petitioner did not challenge the same before the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
Tribunal. He contends that the petitioner allowed the order to
become final. However, she woke up only after Section 79A
and 79B were deleted in terms of the Karnataka Act
No.56/2020. He submitted that Section 12 of the amendment
Act 56/2020 read as follows:
"12. Savings.- (1) Notwithstanding the
omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with
effect from 1st day of March, 1974, all cases
finally disposed off before the promulgation
of the Karnataka Land Reforms
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka
Ordinance 13 of 2020) shall remain
unaffected by the said Ordinance.
(2) All cases pending before any Court,
tribunal or other authority contempt under
the provisions of the Principal Act on the
date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land
Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020
(Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020)
pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C
shall hereby stand abated."
7. He therefore contends that the alleged non-taking
over of the possession of the forfeited land etc., is
consequential as all cases that were finally disposed off before
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
the ordinance of 2020 would remain unaffected by the said
ordinance. He therefore contends that the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that she is in possession of
the property and therefore the proceedings were abated is
unacceptable as it is not saved under Section 12 of Karnataka
Act 56/2020. He therefore prays that the petition be dismissed.
8. I have considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional
Government Advocate.
9. A perusal of the order passed by the respondent
No.3 shows that the order forfeiting the land in question in
favour of the State Government was passed on 26.10.2012 for
violation of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
The petitioner did not challenge the said order from the year
2012 till the year 2023 when she filed an appeal before the
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, as on the date when
the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020 was brought into force, the
case relating to forfeiture of the land of the petitioner was
finally disposed off and no proceeding was pending before the
Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3660
10. The contention of the petitioner that possession of
the property was not taken over by the respondents is
inconsequential, as what were saved were only those cases
which were pending as on the date of the Amending Act 56 of
2020. The amendment Act 56 of 2020 certainly did not confer
the benefit to all those persons who were still in possession of
the property notwithstanding the order of forfeiture and
resumption passed by the concerned revenue authorities and
accepting this contention would be adding words into the
legislation which is impermissible and therefore, the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
11. In that view of the matter, this petition lacks merits
and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP, LG
