Karnataka High Court
Sharada J Shetty vs The Thasildar on 9 February, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.1066/2018 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHARADA J.SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
W/O A JANARDHAN SHETTY
RESIDING AT LAXMI
BENDURWELL
MANGALORE-575 002 ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.S.ANANDHI, ON BEHALF OF
SRI.VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE THASILDAR
SOMWARPET TALUK
SOMWARPET-571 236
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADIKERI SUB DIVISION
MADIKERI-571 201 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GIRI KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY
THE KAT AND ALSO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
2
PERTAINING TO THE ORDER DATED 03.5.2016 PASSED BY
R-2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI AT
ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner herein is impugning order dated 3.5.2016 passed in No.BHUUSU/U/11/2014-15 by the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri which is at Annexure-B, confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 17.11.2017, which is at Annexure -A.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The records would indicate that the petitioner herein has acquired agricultural land bearing Kula No.47 of Basavanahalli village, Kushalnagar Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District, which is said to be referred to in previous deed as Survey No.1/31 and presently as Survey No.1/101 and as Survey No.1/101 3 in RTC, measuring to an extent of 3 acres, under a registered sale deed dated 30.7.2013, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Somwarpet.
3. The aforesaid sale deed was referred to the second respondent on the premise that there is violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as 'KLR Act', for brevity) resulting in the matter being submitted to the Revenue Inspector for inspection and he is said to have tendered his Report in M.R.Proceedings No.H9/2013-144 before the Tahsildar, Somwarpet Taluk, who in turn, referred the same to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner by his letter No.BHU SU 79(B)/96/2013-14 dated 10.3.2014.
4. In the said proceedings, it is stated that the second respondent has taken the view that the petitioner herein has committed violation of the 4 provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the KLR Act, while acquiring the aforesaid land under the registered sale deed. Accordingly, the sale deed was set aside and the land was directed to be confiscated to the State. The said order was subject matter of appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.654/2016 wherein the same was dismissed by its judgment dated 17.11.2017.
5. Against such dismissal, the present writ petition is filed on the premise that sufficient opportunity was not given to them in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for furnishing all relevant documents to establish that the petitioner belongs to the family of agriculturists and the total family income is less than the prescribed limit as on the date of the sale transaction. It is also their grievance that though attempt was made to demonstrate the same before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the Appellate 5 Authority has not taken that into consideration and the appeal was dismissed on the premise that relevant documents are not produced before the Authority. Hence, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition wherein several documents are filed before this court and there is attempt to produce documents pertaining to the income of the family. However, this Court cannot look into that in this writ proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the Karnataka Appellate Authority dated 17.11.2017 in Appeal No.654/2016 and the order passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner in Proceedings No.LR/N/11/2014-15 dated 3.5.2016 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner with a direction to secure all the relevant documents from the petitioner and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. 6
With such observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv CT-RG