Karnataka High Court
Nagamma And Anr vs The Secretary And Ors on 10 March, 2022
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.202247 OF 2021 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.NAGAMMA
W/O MADAPPA VANNE
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. AT POST KABEERABAD WADI
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR - 585401.
2. NAYEEMODDIN
S/O M.RAFIYODDIN
AGE: 47 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. AT POST KABBERABAD WADI
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR - 585401. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PREETAM DEULGAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.SHIVAPUTRA S.UDABALKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BASAVAKALYAN
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR - 585401.
3. TAHASILDAR
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST. BIDAR - 585401.
4. MOHD. SHAFIYODDIN
S/O ABDUL RAZAK
AGE: 60 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HALLIKHED (B)
TQ. HUMNABAD
DIST: BIDAR - 585401. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR R.TENGLI., AGA FOR R1 TO 3;
R4 - DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING
CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Preetam Deulgaonkar, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Shivaputra S.Udabalkar, for petitioners and Sri.Shivakumar R.Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person. 3
2. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. The facts are briefly stated as under:-
It is stated that respondent No.4 was the owner of the Inam land bearing Sy.No.105/2 situated at Kabeerabad Wadi, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar District. The record of rights were also standing in the name of respondent No.4 as Pattedar of said land for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09.
It is also stated that the petitioners purchased the land in Sy.No.105/2 measuring total extent of 10 Acres situated at Kabeerabad Wadi, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar District from the fourth respondent. The first petitioner purchased the land to the extent of 4 Acres by a sale deed No.C-2789/2006-07. The second petitioner purchased the land to the extent of 6 Acres by a sale deed 4 No.C-2290/2006-07. Both the petitioners purchased the land on 22.11.2009 from the fourth respondent.
It is further stated that the petitioners applied for the mutation of their names in the record of rights and their names were entered in record of rights for the year 2009-
10. The names of petitioners were entered by mutation No.MR32/2008-09 dated:15.07.2009 and MR21/2009-10 dated:29.10.2009. The petitioners were successful in purchasing the lands and the mutation proceedings. The Tahasildar - respondent No.3 raised certain objections and requested the Assistant Commissioner - the second respondent for conducting the enquiry in the matter.
It is averred that the Assistant Commissioner - the second respondent raised objection regarding unauthorized sale of the Inam land without prior approval from the Competent Authority. On the request of the Tahasildar - the third respondent, proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner - the second respondent and 5 notices were issued to the petitioners and respondent No.4.
The Assistant Commissioner - second respondent passed an order on 26.07.2010 stating that the transaction in question is in contravention of the provision of Section 12(2) of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for short 'the Act') and Section 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. By the impugned order, the respondent has directed for cancellation of the mutation in the names of the petitioners in the Record of Rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.105/2 and further directed the Tahasildar - respondent No.3 to enter the name of Government of Karnataka in Column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the Record of Rights of the said land and also directed to forfeit the land to the Government. Accordingly, the names of petitioners were removed and the name of Government of Karnataka was inserted in the records.
Under these circumstances, petitioners having left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy have filed 6 this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Sri. Preetam Deulgaonkar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the order suffers from serious infirmity and is not according to the law.
Next, he submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has not correctly appreciated the material placed on record and has erroneously passed the impugned order without there being any violation of law.
A further submission is made that the direction to the Tahasildar to make entries in Column Nos.9 and 12(2) of Record of Rights and also to take possession of the land by forfeiting it to Government of Karnataka is wholly untenable in law.
Counsel vehemently urged that nowhere under the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 it is stated that in case of violation if any, the land to be forfeited to the Government.
7
Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of Assistant Commissioner is liable to be set-aside and appropriate Writ may be issued to quash the same.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate justified the order of the Assistant Commissioner. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner taking into consideration the relevant documents has rightly forfeited the land to the Government. Accordingly, he submits that appropriate order may be passed.
6. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of parties and perused the Writ papers with care.
7. The petitioners purchased the land bearing Sy.No.105/2 measuring 10 Acres situated at Kabeerabad Wadi, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar District from the fourth respondent and accordingly the names of the petitioners were also mutated. The Tahsildar raised objection and hence he requested the Assistant Commissioner for conducting the enquiry. Thereafter, the Assistant 8 Commissioner raised objection that the sale is in contravention of the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. Notices were came to be issued to the petitioners and the fourth respondent.
Suffice it to note that the Assistant Commissioner passed the order on 26.07.2010 stating that the transaction in question is in contravention of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act and Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and directed for cancellation of the mutation of the names of the petitioners in the Record of Rights in respect of the land in question.
It is also noticed that the Assistant Commissioner has also directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of Government of Karnataka in column Nos.9 and 12(2) of the Record of Rights of the land and directed to forfeit the land to the Government. In pursuance of the order, the names of the petitioners were removed and the name of 9 Government of Karnataka was inserted in the Record of Rights.
While addressing the argument, learned counsel Sri. Preetam Deulgaonkar has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 and sought to urge that in the Act it is not stated that in case of violation of the provisions of the Act, the land has to be forfeited to the Government. The relevant provision only states about the condition requisite for alienation of the land. It does not confer any right or power to forfeit the land to the Government. Therefore, the respondents have completely misread the law and have erroneously proceeded to pass the order.
It is also relevant to note that the order of the Assistant Commissioner also refers to the violation of Section 79B of the Act. But, the contention of the petitioner is that there is no violation. 10
It is relevant to note that by virtue of the Amendment Act, Sections 79(A), 79(B) and 79(C) of the KLR Act, 1961 are omitted from the Principal Act with effect from 01.03.1974.
That apart, there is no provision under the Act to forfeit the land to the Government.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26.07.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner - respondent No.2 in ¸ÀA.J¸Àr©/¨sÀƸÀÄ/¹Dgï-68/2009-10/2661-64 is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TKN/VMB