Karnataka High Court
Nripendra Mohan Sahai S/O Alte Sri Kamla ... vs The State Of Karntaka, on 19 March, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE TH
19
DAY OF MARCH 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SPATIL
WP.No.6O221/2O11 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
Nripendra Mohan Sahai,
Sf0 late Sri Kamla Sahai,
Aged about 72 years,
Retired from Pvt Service.
R/o No.29A, Srikrishnapuri,
Patna:800 001 (State of Bihar).
Represented by his duly constituted Attorney,
Sri Jitendra Mohan Sahal,
S/c late Sri Kamla Sahai.
Rio A-58, Sector-39,
Noida (State of Uttar Pradesh)
Presently residing at Hospet,
Karnataka. PETITIONER
(By Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Secretary
to the Government of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building, Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore-580 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Kumta, Dist: Karwar. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Smt.K. Vidyavati, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
impugned order No. Bhu .Su/A. P/VIVa/22/08-09 dated
14.05.2009 passed by the 2 respondent (Annexure-E),
and etc.
This writ petition coming on Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta Sub-Division, Kumta, holding that the transaction of sale under which the petitioner has purchased the lands in question is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and therefore, the lands in question were required to be forfeited to the Government, is called in question in this writ petition.
2. The main ground on which the impugned order is challenged is, that the same was passed without hearing the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry in accordance with law. Though the 3 petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against this order, this Court has entertained this writ petition and has directed notice to the other side on 22.2.2011 granting interim stay of the impugned order in view of the assertion made by the petitioner that the order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is passed proceeding on the basis that though notice was issued to the petitioner at the address mentioned in the sale deed and also to his power of attorney holder, the same was not served and the panchanama conducted by the Tahasildar, Ankola while submitting his service report disclosed that neither the petitioner nor his power of attorney holder were residing in the address disclosed in the document. It is thus clear that the petitioner was not served with notice of the proceedings before the impugned order could be passed.
3. A perusal of the impugned order also does not disclose that the Assistant Commissioner has considered any other material which could enable him to come to the conclusion that the transaction was in 4 violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In fact, he has proceeded to hold that though the petitioner was called upon to produce certificate showing his annual income and the extent of his land holdings as on the date of sale, the petitioner had failed to produce the same and therefore, prima facie it had to be concluded that there was violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Such an order, in my considered view, cannot be sustained.
4. The Assistant Commissioner has failed to record any positive finding and to arrive at a final conclusion in the matter as to how the transaction was in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act. In fact, as notice itself is not served on the petitioner or on his power of attorney holder, question of the petitioner coming to know about the initiation of the proceedings and producing necessary documents before the Assistant Commissioner would not arise. If the notice of the proceedings has not been served on the petitioner, as is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order, L 5 the appropriate course in the matter is to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Assistant Commissioner on a specified date.
5. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the 2 respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 22.5.2012 at 3.00 P.M. by producin g necessary documents to substantiate his stand regarding the income and also with regard to the agricultural holdings that he had at the relevant time.
The petitioner shall treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and produce such materials as he desires and also file objections, if any, on the date when he appears before the 2' respondent - Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissione r shall pass necessary orders after hearing the petitioner.
Sd/
Sub! JUDGE