Karnataka High Court
Reji Nariyelli Mathal S/O Mathal vs State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531
WP No. 105635 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105635 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
REJI NARIYELLI MATHAI S/O. MATHAI,
AGED BOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NARIYELLI HOUSE, THRICKALATHOOR,
MUVATTUPUZHA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-683557.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SIRSI SUB-DIVISION, SIRSI-581401,
Location: HIGH
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 3. TAHASHILDAR,
MUNDAGOD TALUK, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA-581349.
4. SMT. SAVITRI,
W/O. GANGADHAR REVANAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ANANDANAGAR, MUNDAGOD-581349,
MUNDAGOD TALUK, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3;
NOTICE TO R4-DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531
WP No. 105635 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO;
a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2016 BEARING
NO.BHU.SU/79AB/VI.VA/31/2014-15 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
b) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ITS OFFICIALS TO
MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORDS IN
LAND BEARING R.S.NO.54/2 MEASURING 4-38-0 OF
VADAGATTA VILLAGE OF MUNDAGOD TALUK, UTTAR
KANNADA DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A and direct respondent No.2 to mutate his name in the records with respect to land bearing R.S. No.54/2 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas of Vadagatta village, Mundagod taluka, Uttara Kannada District.
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing R.S. No.54/2 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas of Vadagatta village of -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR Mundagod taluka, Uttara Kannada district. The acquired the land under a registered sale deed dated 16.01.2014. The petitioner is an agriculturist by birth. Pursuant to the sale deed, the revenue records came to be mutated in the name of the petitioner in M.R. No.H6/2013-14 and the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. This being the state of affairs, the respondent No.3-Tahasildar, Mundagod, submitted a report dated 01.10.2014 to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner alleging violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent initiated action under Section 83 of the Act and thereafter issued notice to the parties. The petitioner appeared, filed objections by contending that he is an agriculturist and being a resident of Kerala State having agricultural land in Kerala and produced possession certificate so also income tax returns.
3. The 2nd respondent without affording opportunity to the petitioner passed the impugned order dated -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR 06.01.2016, which according to the petitioner is a illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is this order which is questioned by the petitioner in this petition on the ground that the Government of Karnataka by way of Ordinance published Karnataka Ordinance No.13/2022 in the Gazette Notification dated 13.07.2020 and subsequent Ordinance vide Gazette Notification dated 02.11.2020 whereby the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act came to be omitted from the principal Act with effect from 01.03.1974, therefore, the same is retrospective in nature. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had approached the appellate Tribunal to file an appeal aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.01.2016, but however, the petitioner was instructed on 22.04.2022, the first respondent got issued a circular bearing No.RD/23/RME/2020. The Appellate Tribunal got issued an Official Memorandum bearing No.C1/CR-06-2020 dated 29.04.2022 directing the office of the judicial counter not to entertain any appeals that would be filed under Section -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR 118(2) of the Act against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner regarding violation of Sections 78A and 79B of the Act. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was not entertaining the appeals, hence, he is before this Court by way of this petition seeking to quash the impugned order and grant him the benefit of amendment to the Act omitting Sections79A and 79B of the principal Act.
4. Per contra, learned AGA contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the present petition would not fall within the category for consideration of the Ordinance or the amendment Act omitting Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondent/State.
6. The issuance of the notice and the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is not in dispute. So also the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by omitting Sections 79A and 79B of the Act by the Karnataka -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. By virtue of the Ordinance, Sections 79A and 79B have been omitted from the principal Act. In view of the Circular passed by the State Government and the appeals being not entertained against the order passed by respondent No.2, the present petition would have to be entertained. In identical circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5543/20211 passed an order remitting the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration of affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. It is the contention of learned AGA that land is forfeited way back on 06.01.2016, hence the land vests with the Government. No proceedings are pending before any authority. Therefore, the proceedings have attained finality.
8. Admittedly by the impugned order, land is forfeited on 06.01.2016. Ordinance 2020 contemplates the 1 Disposed of on 08.09.2022 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR omission of Sections 79A and 79B of the Principal Act. Two scenarios emerge from the ordinance.
i) If any case filed challenging the order of the authority as against Sections 79A and 79B of the Act is disposed of before the publication of the KLR(Amendment) Ordinance 2020, shall not be effected.
ii) If any case against such order by the authority against Sections 79A and 79B is pending before any authority/Court as on the date of publication of the KLR (Amendment) Ordinance 2020, shall stand abated.
9. In the present case on hand, land was purchased on 16.01.2014, respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner passed order on 06.01.2016. No appeal is filed immediately by the petitioner. It is contended that due to the Official Memorandum dated 29.04.2022, appeals before the KAT was not entertained. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition on 05.12.2022. It is contended by petitioner that possession of the land is still with petitioner and the same is not forfeited or taken by the Government.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the KLR (Amendment) Ordinance 2020, whereby Sections 79A and 79B of the Act is omitted, the same relates back to the year 1974; it would be necessary for respondent No.2 to consider these aspects afresh. Respondent No.2 will have to consider if lands are forfeited and any third party rights are created. Respondent No.2 to consider the consequences of the KLR (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 to the present case on hand. It is also to be seen, if possession of land is still with the petitioner, what would be the effect of the order of forfeiture.
11. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. This writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 06.01.2016 bearing No.Bhu.Su/79AB/Vi.Va/31/2014-15 passed by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent- Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR the petitioner including the consequences of subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by virtue of Karnataka Amendment No.56/2020 and pass suitable orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii. If the land is not forfeited and not granted to any 3rd party and in possession of the petitioner, 2nd respondent shall take into consideration the amendment made to the Act omitting Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.
iv. It is made clear that if the land has been granted to 3rd party, then sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings attained finality or otherwise sub-
section (2) of Section 13 of the KLR (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 will apply and all
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8531 WP No. 105635 of 2022 HC-KAR further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.
v. The petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE kmv CT-MCK