Karnataka High Court
Smt. G. Sheela vs The Govt Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36965
WP No. 23378 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.23378 OF 2024 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SMT.G.SHEELA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
D/O LATE K. GURUMURTHY
NO.73, (OLD NO.1563)
6TH MAIN ROAD
E-BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU -560 010
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISWANATH SABARAD.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE GOVT OF KARNATAKA
by CHAITHRA A REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: HIGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION
KOLLEGALA
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36965
WP No. 23378 of 2024
3. THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE
KOLLEGAL
KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.01.2023 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.53/2014 BY KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRODUCED AS
ANNX-D AND ALLOW THE APPEAL NO.53/2013-14 DTD. 20.01.2014
ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order of forfeiture dated 16.08.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, -3- NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024 whereby the petitioner's property was forfeited under the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as "the Act").
3. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 came into force on 30.07.2020. By this Ordinance, Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C of the Act were omitted. Section 13 of the Ordinance included a saving clause, indicating that all pending cases concerning these sections stood abated.
Factual Background:
4. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy. No.289/B measuring 0.84 cents and Sy. No.289/C measuring 1.72 acres situated at -4- NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024 Mudigunda Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Kollegal Taluk and the said land was subject to forfeiture under the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.
Respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, passed the impugned order on 16.08.2013 invoking the said provisions and ordered the forfeiture of the petitioner's land in favor of the State. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, challenging the legality of the forfeiture order.
5. During the pendency of the appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 came into force on 30.07.2020. The Ordinance omitted Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C of the Act, thereby removing the statutory provisions under which the forfeiture had been ordered. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024
6. The Appellate Tribunal, while considering the appeal, dismissed the same on the ground that, in view of the 2020 amendment, the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B stood abated, and no further action could be taken. This dismissal was primarily based on the saving clause under Section 13 of the Ordinance, which provided that all cases pending on the date of publication of the Ordinance relating to these omitted sections would abate.
7. The petitioner contends that the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, which retrospectively came into force from 01.03.1974, rendered the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the principal Act void ab initio. It was further argued that the Appellate Tribunal correctly applied the law in dismissing the appeal as abated. Therefore, the impugned order of forfeiture by Respondent No.2 dated 16.08.2013 is liable to be quashed. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024
8. This Court examined the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, particularly Sections 5, 6, and 7, which specifically omitted Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C from the principal Act. The omission of these sections had retrospective effect from 01.03.1974. Consequently, all proceedings initiated under these sections, including the one against the petitioner, stood abated.
9. This Court also took note of Section 13(2) of the Ordinance, which clearly provided that all cases pending on the date of the publication of the Ordinance pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C stood abated. The forfeiture order passed by respondent No.2 was rendered ineffective due to the abatement of the proceedings.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024 Conclusion:
10. In light of the retrospective application of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, the forfeiture proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act stand abated. The impugned order dated 16.08.2013 passed by Respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner is therefore null and void.
11. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The writ petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order of forfeiture dated 16.08.2013 passed by Respondent No.2
- the Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-B, is declared abated and is accordingly quashed.-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:36965 WP No. 23378 of 2024
3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to delete the name of the State of Karnataka from Column No.9 of the Record of Rights (RTC) pertaining to the petitioner's land. The name of the petitioner shall be mutated in the RTC in accordance with law.
4. This exercise shall be completed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. No order as to costs.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14