Karnataka High Court
Pariwar Palace Apartment Owners ... vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18491
WP No. 35441 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 35441 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
PARIWAR PALACE APARTMENT
OWNERS ASSOCIATION (R)
REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA
ASSOCIATION REGISTERED ACT 1960
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI ANANDAPADMANABHAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
REGD. OFFICE AT 67/2
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 560076.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. DORE RAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COURT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560002.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIKE TASK FORCE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18491
WP No. 35441 of 2024
HC-KAR
BRUHATH BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE-560002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA .B, AGA FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI. N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR
R2 [THROUGH V.C.])
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
IMPUGNED NOTICE NO. BMTF/ADGP/PETITION - 1141/2024
DATED 23.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-3 IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND BUILDING AT SY.NO. 67/2
DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BEGURU HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH
TALUK, BENGALURU TO THE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 25 GUNTAS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned Notice No.BMTF/ADGP/PETITION/1141/2024 dated 23.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 -3- NC: 2025:KHC:18491 WP No. 35441 of 2024 HC-KAR and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. The impugned notice issued by respondent No.3, as evidenced at Annexure-A, is clearly unsustainable in law and cannot be given effect to, particularly in light of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33667/2024. A perusal of the impugned notice indicates that respondent No.3 has proceeded on the premise that the subject land stands forfeited to the Government by virtue of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, purportedly in exercise of powers under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
4. However, a close reading of Annexure-Q, which is a copy of the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench, reveals that the very order of forfeiture dated 10.06.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner has been quashed and set aside. The Co-ordinate Bench, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:18491 WP No. 35441 of 2024 HC-KAR after appreciating the legal implications arising from the repeal of Sections 79A and 79B of 'the Act', has rightly come to the conclusion that any order passed under the now repealed provisions would require reconsideration in accordance with the current legal framework.
5. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner with a direction to reconsider the issue afresh, bearing in mind that the legal foundation namely, Sections 79A and 79B under which the original forfeiture order was passed, no longer exists in the statute book. The operative portion of the said judgment is of considerable relevance and importance to the present proceedings, and therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the same, which reads as follows:
"ORDER i. The impugned order dated 10.06.2015 bearing No.LRF(83)Be/33/2004-05 passed by -5- NC: 2025:KHC:18491 WP No. 35441 of 2024 HC-KAR the third respondent (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) is hereby set-aside.
ii. The matter stands remanded back to third respondent for fresh consideration and he is hereby directed to take into consideration the repeal of Section 79A and 79B of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
iii. Petitioner is directed to appear before third respondent on (THREEE WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER) without further notice.
iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."
6. Upon a careful examination of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, as evidenced at Annexure-Q, it is evident that the order of forfeiture passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been set aside. The Co-ordinate Bench, after considering the legal position and the effect of the repeal of Sections 79A and 79B, has -6- NC: 2025:KHC:18491 WP No. 35441 of 2024 HC-KAR found the order of forfeiture to be unsustainable in law and has consequently remitted the matter back to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
7. In this background, the issuance of the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3, which proceeds on the presumption that the petition property already stands forfeited by the Assistant Commissioner under the aforementioned provisions, is clearly misconceived and untenable. The very foundation on which the impugned notice rests namely, the order of forfeiture dated 10.06.2015 no longer holds the field, having been set-aside by the Co-ordinate Bench.
8. Once the forfeiture order has been quashed and the matter remanded for reconsideration, it follows that no rights or consequences can flow from such an invalidated order. Therefore, any further administrative or coercive action taken based on the assumption that the property -7- NC: 2025:KHC:18491 WP No. 35441 of 2024 HC-KAR stands forfeited would amount to a patent error of law and jurisdictional overreach.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice, as evidenced at Annexure-A, being founded on a non-existent and legally invalid order, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside in its entirety. Respondent No.3 is directed to await the outcome of the reconsideration proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner and not to initiate or pursue any further action in relation to the property in question until such time.
10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned Notice No.BMTF/
ADGP/PETITITON/1141/2024 dated 23.12.2024 -8- NC: 2025:KHC:18491 WP No. 35441 of 2024 HC-KAR vide Annexure-A issued by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed.
(iii) The respondents, however, are entitled to take appropriate action subject to outcome of the enquiry pending before the Assistant Commissioner.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42