Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sohan Lal vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2020
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14751/2020 (LR)
BETWEEN :
SRI. SOHAN LAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O HIRA LAL,
R/AT NO 184, 2ND BEEDHI,
2ND DIVISION, VIVEKANANDANAGAR,
WARD NO.09, KANAKAPURA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT -562 117
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
DR.B.RAMBEDKAR VEEI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
THE OFFICE4 OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANGARA SUB-DIVISION
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.
2
3. THE TASHILDAR
TALUK OFFICE
CHENNAPATTANA,
CHENNAPATTANA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPP., AGA (VC))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ORDER PASSED IN LRF NO: 79 A&B 61/2017-2018 DATED
13.03.2020 AND DIRECT THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO ENTER
THE NAME OF PETITIONERS IN RECORDS OF RIGHTS IN
RESPECT OF SCHEUDLE A AND B PROPERTIES AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who asserts that he is in possession of the lands measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.145/3 and 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.145/4 of Davyapattana village, Virupakshipura hobli, Chennapattana Taluk, Ramanagar District (the Subject Properties), has filed this petition impugning the orders dated 13.3.2020 in the proceedings in 3 LRF 79 (A) & (B) 60/2017-18 and LRF 79 (A) & (B) 61/2017- 18 (Annexures-E and F).
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub- division, Ramanagar, the second respondent, by the impugned orders has concluded that purchase of the subject properties by the petitioner under the respective sale deeds in the year 2016 is in violation of the provisions of Sections 79 (A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The Assistant Commissioner has arrived at this conclusion because the petitioner has not furnished the income details for five years preceding the date of purchase.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has produced documents to establish that he owns agricultural lands in Khasra Girdawari village, Khokhra Tehsil-Solat district Pali, Rajasthan and therefore, he is not disqualified from owning agricultural lands. These documents 4 have not been considered; even otherwise presently, the provisions of Sections 79(A) and (B) of the Act are deleted and clarifications have been issued by the State clarifying that all pending proceedings would also abate with the change in law. Therefore, the impugned order will have to be set aside.
4. Smt. Swetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without availing remedy available under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to controvert the submission as regards the change in law with the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 and the clarification issued by the State clarifying that all pending proceedings would abate.
5
5. In these circumstances, it would be proper for this Court to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to make a representation with the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub-division, Ramanagar for appropriate decision in the changed circumstances. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
(a) The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a representation before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramangar Sub-division, Ramanagar for appropriate orders in the light of the change in law and the subsequent notification issued.
(b) The petitioner shall make such representation enclosing a certified copy of this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such representation is submitted, the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagar Sub-division, Ramanagar shall 6 consider the same in the light of the submissions now made but uninfluenced by the impugned order within a period of eight weeks form the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
SD/-
JUDGE SA/-
Ct:sr