G Vishwanathappa vs Assistant Commissioner on 23 September, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

G Vishwanathappa vs Assistant Commissioner on 23 September, 2010

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

'F0 

IN THE HIGH COURT or: KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 23"' day (sf September, 2010

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI L' 

Writ Petitions 19280 /2010 & 19293"/'2Q1'9_ -: 

Between:

G Vishwanathappa, 64 yrs

S/0 late Patef Nagappa

R/0 Srishyala Mallikurjuna Niizxya

Medhehally Road, ctmradurga  I V   .
Chitraciurga ' V     Petitioner

(By Sri B K M'anjL1:1a.th;;Ac§V.) 

And:

I Assis£arituCbJ13mi$siO'pé1' ,.  ' V
D()ddabalEa'pur 'Sub--'Di V<iSiGn'
Ba'|j:ga1Q1'e '

  bC{1daba}}a;3ur21 Tq
 D0'ddala;;§ 5 :;.pVu;:}-1" -- .

' V  , v . 3 'C, S R€1\{ikifé}_i1"V:S/() Nagaraj

# "i"_'~)54--; 8"h*lVI21in Road, E Block
11 Stagc§':.Rajaji11agar. Bzmgaiere Respondents

  ('133I"_s.«1 :R'a;_nach;a;adr;1 R Naik, GP for RL2;
 S«r1i_.GVch':1r1d1'ashek21riah & Assts., for R3)

£2?"



2

Petitions are filed under Art.22()/227 of the Constitution praying
to quash the order passed on 39.9.2008 -- annexure J, etc.

The Petitions eoniingg on for Hearing this day, Court nia.ri:e««.o_ti1c
following: V   "

ORDER

Petitioner has sought for quashing ():r_de~r'dated"!_9.9&.l2ll0Sli!.:

annexure J in LRF SR (D) 170 / by issua_nce Ao§f;'a--~wril or = i certiorari.

According to lhel'p_etitio'ner;' is 'an-_agricultlu1"ist and has been cultivating lands ix/'ere'»a:l'iottecillltol his share in the partition out of the ancestral pircipertielsfH'e'..ha's.'pu1*chased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.93 of Nagaldenahailht-y,ADod'dabal1apur Taluk, to the extent of 20 :.':'gu1';tas froin the 3f" respoiideiit for a valuable consideration under the saledeedlld:a,ted.2Ul.i'2;.i.2C£)8 -- annexure G. The 1" respondent / Assistant " =.Co1nmis_sit)iter.,.Diogidaballapur has issued a notice to the 3" respondent

-. if;-<stétti_,i1g that "the? 3" respondent. acquired the land in question in violation _pre:visi()i1s of 8.79 A & B and S.8() of the Karnalaka Land '=Ref()1~f'ns Act. . 159$"

3

According to the petitioner. the 3'" respondent ought to have appeared before the 1"" respondent and contested the matter. But,V.he did not appear before the I" respondent nor intimated the 'pet':-ti;o.nev!: regarding the notice for violation of the provisions. Now,"-the i1npugiierj'_'e ' order has been passed at annexure J. Thejorderrpassed fagairnsi tttel.'3"::g respondent consequentially affects theppetitionerhitnd, pet'it.ioi';er«.w'as.'noVt"V. a party before the I" respondent. A~eeot'dingly;phephes for quashing the impugned order, ._ Heard the counsel representipng the§p2i.rtiee,i:t it * The lgrie_vance~.*~;tfV_ the 'p.et'it_i__on.e1{ is that, he has purchased the property from the 3's" respondentiand' the petitioner is an agriculturist. The 3" res'po;ident.'--al.s'o tiled statement of objections stating that hisancestors,wem.agiteultitrists i.e., the grandfather of the 3" respondent ()\}vt1},%1V1:tf.1(lVjI?Q'SE?§§3S':$Nvﬁgfltillllliral land at Yadavani Village, Kunigal Taluk ' to an e>~:.tent of2."t5'iztci'es. it is atso stated, the 3" respondent appeared " iV*'V"h__elt*oi'e the .lf7'.i'V'_Fli3S§)()l1(l{:nt pursuant to the notice issued and had taken time \%.x' 4 to secure documents. Elowever, the l" res "J()lldCll[ without followin<.:: the l V...' procedure and, as the 3"" respondent could not appear bCf'()1'€V{l1C> ls' respondent due to his illness, has passed the iinpugn_ed.V'l'order.-«V According to the 3" respondent, he is also entitled to hold" jpurehaself agricultural property as he is from an agrieulturlallfaintly. The owning of agricultural land persmis o:_her_ltlaaln..l'froli%i_: agricultural family is unlawful as per th_e'"p§oVisions of the..Lan_d"vR.eforms Act and, there is also a prohibition...whichdisentitles owning of agricultural land by a person i.ncoiif.e Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than axgrieu.lture. v in the'-c--i1'uurnstanees.,V t'o«.._enable the petitioner as well as the 3""

i'espondent_ to htitfe sui'ficient"v_ tipptirtunity before the 1" respondent to fhave thelirlllsay-lira the rnattlerand also to enable the 'ls' respondent to pass appropriates.o'rdeIs"ii1 a;*cordanee with law, the impugned order is set ' vaside. 'la/lattervis relrniltted to the E." respondent for disposal of the same in < ':1_(2t:i)F(lE1llCC "with law. All contentions are left open to be urged before the :.¥:g§€"'/;/ 1'" respondent. Parties are directed to appear before the 1" resp=;m.den£ on 3"' November, 2010.

Petitions are aiiowed. .' An sd/'~ f ff

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court