Karnataka High Court
Charnesh Kapoor S/O Kuldip Kapoor vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3532
WP No. 102478 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102478 OF 2023 (LR)
BETWEEN:
CHARNESH KAPOOR S/O KULDIP KAPOOR
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS
R/O VELSAO, SALATE STATE-GOA
NOW R/O A-1/8,VASANT VIHAR-1,
VASANT VIHAR SOUTH WEST DELHI,
DELHI-110057.
REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER
PRADYUMNA KUMAR S/O SHIV POOJAN SINGH
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
R/O 358/18E, NEAR MANKAMESHWAR MANDIR,
MANDAWALI, EAST DELHI-110092.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH S NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
SUJATA SUJATA M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
SUBHASH SUBHASH
PAMMAR PAMMAR
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KARWAR SUB-DIVISION, KARWAR
DIST UTTAR KANNADA-581 301.
3. THE TAHASHILDAR
KARWAR,
DIST UTTAR KANNADA-581 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3532
WP No. 102478 of 2023
02/09/2016, BEARING NO.BHU SU.79A.B/VIVA.20/2015-16 PASSED
BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE
ANNEXURE-A, AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/09/2016, BEARING
NO.BHU SU.79A.B/VIVA.19/2015-16 PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B
RESPECTIVELY, AND ALLOW THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY, AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.43/3, measuring 0-0-4 anas, Sy.No.43/4 measuring 0-1 gunta-4 anas, Sy.No.44/2 measuring 0-5 gunta-8 anas, Sy.No.50/3 measuring 0-7 guntas-8 anas, Sy.No.50/5 measuring 0-1 gunta-10 anas, Sy.No.50/6 measuring 0-1 gunta-6 anas, Sy.No.51/1A measuring 0-20 guntas-0 anas, Sy.No.51/2B+3A measuring 0-14 guntas-0 anas and Sy.No.51/5D+6A measuring 0-15 guntas-0 anas, all situated at Savantwada Majali village in Karwar taluka, having purchased the subject lands under a registered sale deed dated 01.07.2015.
2. The 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act stating that the purchase of the subject lands was in violation of section 79-A, B and C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The 2nd respondent by impugned orders dated 02.09.2016, vide Annexures-A -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3532 WP No. 102478 of 2023 and B, declared that the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner were null and void, and forfeited the land with the State Government. In pursuance of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records without taking lawful possession of the subject lands and therefore, in view of the omission of Section 79-A, B and C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the order passed by the 2nd respondent stands abated.
4. The learned HCGP for the State submits that, the impugned order was passed before omission of Section 79-A, B and C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the possession of the subject lands was taken and the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the omission of section 79-A, B and C of the Act will not invalidate the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent.
5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3532 WP No. 102478 of 2023
6. Though the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records, no material is placed by the respondent State to establish that lawful possession of the subject lands was taken from the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it is inferred that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the subject lands as of today. The State Government by Act No.56/2020 omitted Section 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act; Section 12 of the Act, 2020 deals with savings and it states that notwithstanding the omission of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act w.e.f 1st day of March, 1974, all cases finally disposed of before promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 shall remain unaffected.
7. In the instant case though the order was passed by the 2nd respondent forfeiting the subject land, however, the proceedings has not been concluded since lawful possession of the subject lands were not taken from the petitioner. Therefore, the lawful possession of the subject lands having not been taken by the Government, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 stands abated. Accordingly, I pass the following:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3532 WP No. 102478 of 2023 ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent at Annexures-A and B is hereby quashed.
iii) It is needless to state that the petitioner is entitled for restoration of his name in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands after deleting the name of the Government, and if such an application is submitted, the Tahasildar concerned to restore the name of the petitioner after deleting the name of the Government from the revenue records within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRK CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31