Karnataka High Court
The Deputy Commissioner vs Murarilal Agarwal on 31 January, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.A. NO.101458/2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BALLARI SUB-DIVISION, BALLARI.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MURARILAL AGARWAL
S/O A.P. AGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NO.899A, 899B and 900
HARAGINADONI ROAD
VENIVEERAPURA CROSS
KUDITHINI VILLAGE
BALLARI-585104.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU.
3. THE ARCELOR MITTAL LTD.,
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
2
COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
UPPAL PLAZA, M6, 6TH FLOOR
JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE
NEW DELHI-110025.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SRINAND PACHAPURE., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI P.N.HATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.78519/2013 DATED 02.08.2014 & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Respondent No.1 in this appeal, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.78519/2013 had purchased 9 different agricultural lands under 9 different sale deeds. 8 sale deeds were registered on 14.01.2007 and one sale deed was registered on 20.8.2008. The Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, Ballari felt that there are enough reasons to scrutinize the transaction on suspected violation of Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). In terms of order dated 3 18.12.2012, all transactions referred above were declared as null and void on account of violation of Section 80 of the Act. This order was under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.78519/2013. The learned Single Judge of this Court referring to several judgments rendered under Section 79A and 79B of the Act came to the conclusion that the action initiated by the State is belated and accordingly allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Learned Single Judge is of the view that the sale deeds were registered in the year 2007-2008 and action was initiated in the year 2012, as such, the action initiated is not within the reasonable period and vitiated by delay and latches. This order of the learned Single Judge is questioned in the writ petition.
2. Subsequent development namely amendment to the Act in terms of Karnataka Ordinance No.23 of 2020 has got a bearing on the outcome of this appeal. In terms of said amendment, Section 79A, 79B and 79C are omitted 4 and Section 80 is amended by way of substitution. And certain clauses in Section 80 are omitted and certain clauses are substituted. The said ordinance also provides for savings of certain actions initiated under Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act. At the same time, Sub-Section 2 of Section 12 of amendment ordinance provides for abatement of pending cases.
Sections 12 and 13 of the Karnataka Ordinance No.23 of 2020 reads as under;
12. Savings.- (1) Notwithstanding the omission of section 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1st day of March 1974, all cases finally disposed off before the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) shall remain unaffected by the said Ordinance.
(2) All cases pending before any Court, tribunal or other authority competent under the provisions of the principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 5 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated.
13. Repeal and Savings.- (1) The Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the principal Act, as amended by the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under principal Act, as amended by this Ordinance.
3. Reading of sub-Section 2 of Section 12 referred above makes it clear that, all cases pending before any Court, Tribunal or other authority competent under the provisions of the principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated. The word 'any Court' used in aforementioned provision also includes High Court and there is no reason to exclude the High Court from the 6 expression 'any Court' referred in the above said Section. Under these circumstances, the present appeal filed by the State stands abated, as such, there is no scope to examine the validity of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as abated. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE am