Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Lokesh Chandra Talk vs Thasildar on 21 March, 2025

Author: N S Sanjay Gowda

Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda

                                       -1-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:11881
                                                 WP No. 28699 of 2024




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                    DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

                                     BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 28699 OF 2024 (LR)
            BETWEEN:

            1.    SRI LOKESH CHANDRA TALK
                  S/O SRI.MUNGILAL TALK
                  AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
                  R/AT NO 91/3, BRUNDHAVANA,
                  1 PHASE, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE, GOKUL
                  BANGALORE-560054
                                                         ...PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    THE THASILDAR
                  BENGALURU-NORTH TALUK
                  BENGALURU-560009.

            2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Digitally         BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
signed by
KIRAN             BENGALURU-560009.
KUMAR R
Location:
HIGH        3.    THE CHIEF SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA         GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
                  VIDHANA SOUDHA,
                  BENGALURU-560001.

            4.     SRI. N.PURSHOTHAMA,
                   S/O N.M.NAGARAJ,
                   R/AT No.833, GANESH NIVAS,
                   8TH CROSS, CHAMENDESHWARI,
                   LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 054.
                                                     ...RESPONDENTS
            (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)
                            -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:11881
                                      WP No. 28699 of 2024




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CASE NO. L.R.F.(1) 300/09-10,
DTD 28.11.2011 BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-E AND
CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS OR CHANGES MADE IN REVENUE
ENTRIES IF ANY, ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA


                      ORAL ORDER

1. The proceedings were initiated for contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by the Assistant Commissioner against N.Purushottama in the year 2009-10 on the basis of the report dated 29.12.2009.

2. Despite service of notice to Purushottama, he did not enter appearance and, consequently, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an order holding that he had contravened Sections 79A and 79B and ordered the vesting of the land in favour of the State.

-3-

NC: 2025:KHC:11881 WP No. 28699 of 2024

3. This order is called in question by the petitioner Lokesh Chandra Tak contending that, he had purchased the property from Purushottama on 17.01.2009 and the khata was also changed in his name vide M.R.No.65/2008-2009 and, despite his name being in the records, the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to conduct the proceedings only against Purushottama, who had no subsisting interest.

4. He submits that, since as on the date the proceedings were initiated, the petitioner had acquired title and his name was reflected in the revenue records, the order passed in respect of the land that the petitioner had purchased would be illegal.

5. It is seen from the sale deed, which is produced at Annexure - A, that the petitioner did purchase the property From Purushottama on 17.01.2009 and, -4- NC: 2025:KHC:11881 WP No. 28699 of 2024 thereafter, this name was mutated in revenue records vide M.R.No.65/2008-2009 on 04.05.2009.

6. The order of the Assistant Commissioner indicates that, the proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report dated 29.12.2009.

7. Since the RTC stood in the name of the petitioner, it is obvious that the proceedings initiated in the month of December 2009 against Purushottama would be unsustainable.

8. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed.

9. In the normal circumstances, the order would have to be set aside and, the matter would have to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after impleading the petitioner herein. However, since Sections 79A & 79B of the Act has been omitted from the statute and the proceedings are ordered to be abated, no useful purpose would -5- NC: 2025:KHC:11881 WP No. 28699 of 2024 be served by remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner.

10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for contravention of Section 79A and 79B shall stand abated.

11. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6