Sri. Mallappa S/O. Basavannappa ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 4 December, 2021

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Mallappa S/O. Basavannappa ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 4 December, 2021

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE DAY OF 4TH DECEMBER, 2021

                              BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

              WP NO 103705 OF 2021 (KLR/RES)

BETWEEN

SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BASAVANNAPPA TAVAREGERI
AGE. 57 YEARS,R/O. BYCHAVALLI
TQ. HANAGALLA,DIST. HAVERI-581110
                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SUNIL DESAI, ADV.,)

AND

1 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HANAGALLA,DIST. HAVERI-581110

2 . THE TAHSILDAR
HANAGALLA,DIST. HAVERI-581110
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.KLR.APSR/79A B/PRO-
92/2011-12 DATED 23-06-2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AS
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                      2




                                 ORDER

Petitioner purchased the land bearing R.S.No.64/13 measuring 1 acre 9 guntas situated in Bhychavalli village, Hangal taluk, District Haveri through registered sale deed dated 22/7/2011. Thereafter the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question.

2. When things stood thus, 1st respondent initiated proceedings under Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short the Act) alleging that the petitioner has purchased land in question in violation of the Section 79 A and B of the Act. The 1st respondent by order dated 23/6/2014 passed an order declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void and forfeited the land in question with the Government. Being aggrieved this writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1 stands 3 abated since the possession of the land in question is not taken in the manner known to law in view of Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment), 2020 omitting Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Parent Act with effect from 01.03.1974.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondents would submit that in pursuance of the possession of the land taken by the Government, the name of the Government is mutated in the revenue records. Hence, the order passed by the 1st respondent does not abate.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties.

6. Though the name of the Government is mutated in the revenue records pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent forfeiting the land in question with the Government, however, no material placed before this Court to establish that the possession of the land in question is taken over by the Government in the manner known to law. Hence, lawful possession of the land in question still remains 4 with petitioner. In view of Omission of Section 79 A and B of the Act, order passed by the 1st respondent stands abated. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 23/6/2014 passed by the 1st respondent Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in question after deleting the name of the Government within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vb/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court