Karnataka High Court
Smt Uma vs The Secretary on 9 September, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.9140/2019 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT UMA
W/O H.R.GAJENDRA
R/AT NO.1093/6,
SRI.CHOWDESHWARI NILAYA,
10TH CROSS, 80 FT CROSS ROAD,
OPP HULIMAVU LAKE,
BANGALORE-560 076.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NATARAJA H C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
KOLLEGALA-560 092.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 30.10.2012 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN L.R.F.NO.114/2011-12
VIDE ANNX-A & GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 30.10.2012
2
PASSED BY THE R-2 IN L.R.F. NO.114/2011-12 TILL THE
DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for parties. Perused the case papers.
3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under:-
Petitioner purchased the land measuring 1.66 cents in Sy.No.161/3 and 1.88 cents in Sy.No.162/1 both situated at Sattegala village, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagar District, under a registered Sale deed dated 29.10.2010. Hence, proceedings under Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act came to be initiated against petitioner by issuance of Notices dated 31.08.2012 and 20.09.2012 Annexures - G and 3 H respectively. 2nd respondent adjudicated the said Notices for alleged violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Act and arrived at a conclusion that there is no such violation. However, he did not drop the proceedings but proceeded to forfeit the land in question to the Government on the premise that Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for short 'Inams Abolition Act') had been violated by the vendor of petitioner namely, previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner had not been obtained and in violation of same, vendor of the petitioner had sold the property to petitioner under registered sale deed dated 29.10.2010-Annexure-C. Issue relating to right of Government to forfeit the land for having violated the provisions of Section 12(2) of Inams Abolition Act, 1977 is no more res intigra. The Coordinate Bench in the case of A.C.MANIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BIDAR SUB DIVISION AND ANOTHER reported in 2000 (4) KCCR SN 377 has held that forfeiture of land is not provided for contravention of any provisions and same is not conferred upon the State to forfeit the land. 4
4. Even otherwise, a plain reading of Section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Inams Abolition Act would clearly indicate that under sub-section (1), right of inamdar or other person to be registered as an occupant under the said Act, would be subject to payment of land revenue to the State Government as a premium as specified in sub-clause (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Inams Abolition Act. Section 12(2) would indicate that right granted to inamdar as an occupant is subject to further condition that land should not be alienated in any manner or partition except with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and on payment of an amount equal to 25 times land revenue of the lands concerned, which would be in addition to the amount already paid as premium.
5. Thus, there is no complete embargo or ban either for sale or partition taking place. The only pre- requisite condition is that sanction of the Deputy Commissioner has to be obtained and even such sanction would not be necessary in respect of the land 5 which has been granted for an inam including the holder of minor inam of which an applicant has been registered as an occupant in a enfranchised inam. In other words, if inamdar himself is the applicant and has been registered as occupant of the said land, bar contained under sub-section(2) of Section 12 would not surface or would not be applicable. The impugned order does not specify as to whether the vendor of the petitioner who was granted this land was registered as an occupant by way of tenancy or he being the inamdar who had applied for grant of land. Thus, even in the absence of such finding having been reflected, the 2nd respondent proceeded to forfeit the land in question, which power namely forfeiting the land is also unavailable under Section 12, inasmuch as, Section 12(2) does not indicate that there is automatic forfeiture of the land on the alleged violation of Section 12(2) as already noticed herein above.
For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order cannot be sustained.
6
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 30.10.2012 Annexure-A passed by 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE Srl.