Karnataka High Court
Sri A Sadashivaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.40013 OF 2018(LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI.A SADASHIVAIAH,
S/O LATE ARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/AT ABBIGERE VILLAGE,
CHIKKABABNAVARA POST,
YESHVANTHAPUARA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT TO BE CLAIMED
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDINGS, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-01.
3. N.A.GIRISH
S/O N.S.ANANDA,
R/AT NO.421, NEW BEL ROAD,
CHIKKAMARANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 054.
...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI.V SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. N K MALLIKARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2017 IN APPEAL NO. 766/2015
PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-W CONFIRMING THE ORDER
DATED 18/6/2015 IN LRF(83)(BN) NO. 20/2012-13 PASSED BY
THE HONBLE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH
SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND HOLD
THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION DATED 19/1/1992 IN RESPECT
OF LAND MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE IN SY. NO.
21/3 OF ABBIGERE VILLAGE, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI IS IN
VIOLATION OF SECTION 79A AND B OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
REFORMS ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner seeks to lay a challenge to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's order dated 13.10.2017, whereby his appeal No.766/2015 has been negatived and as a result thereof, the Asst. Commissioner's order dated 13.11.2013 dropping the proceedings in question, has attained finality. 3
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the Asst. Commissioner could not have dropped the proceedings on the ground of locus standii when his client happened to be one of the members of the Joint Hindu Family. The subject proceedings arose under the provisions of Sections 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 whereby the land was sought to be forfeited to the State u/s 83 of the Act on the ground of sale to the non- agriculturist whose income from sources other than agriculture was above the prescribed limit.
3. After service of notice, the official Respondents are represented by the learned HCGP and the private Respondent who is the buyer of the land in question, is represented by a private counsel. Both the HCGP and the private counsel oppose the petition contending that the impugned orders are perfectly in accord with the law and all aspects having been looked into by the Appellate Tribunal, the order of the Asst. Commissioner has been affirmed and therefore, there is absolutely no warrant for the indulgence of the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents inasmuch as the Asst. Commissioner had dropped the confiscatory proceedings vide order dated 13.11.2013; it is a statutory order and the Act does not vest power in Asst. Commissioner to review the said order. The Apex Court in the case of HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. KARAM SINGH AIR 1966 SC 641 has held that a statutory order exercising quasi-judicial power becomes functus officio once the order is made and he cannot review his decision in the absence of statutory enablement therefor.
5. The above apart, there is force in the submission of learned private counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent buyer of the land in question that merely because a person happens to be a member of the family, that per se does not vest the right to seek review of the order made by the authority under the provisions of a Statute. Ordinarily, law and justice shun confiscation of private property except for 5 the public purpose that too in the form of acquisition coupled with payment of compensation. The impugned orders being structured on such an inarticulate premise like this, the indulgence of Writ Court is not warranted.
6. There is force in the submission of learned HCGP that the Tribunal comprises of a Sr. Judicial officer of the District Judge cadre and a Selection Grade Officer from the IAS cadre. The appeal is both on law and facts and all aspects having been scrupulously looked into, the Petitioners' appeal has been negatived vide order dated 13.10.2013 and therefore, the writ court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 cannot undertake a deeper examination vide SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2003) 3 SCC 527.
In the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed & accordingly, it is, costs having been reluctantly made easy.
6
This court appreciates the presence and assistance of the Asst. Commissioner Sri.Shivamma M.G, Bangalore North, in the proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc