Karnataka High Court
Smt Shakeera Banu, vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2011
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9" DAY OF DECEMBER 2011- °°. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT. GUNIAL. W.P.NO. 15483 OF 2011 (LR-RES) BETWEEN SMT. SHAKEERA BANU W/O REHMATHULLA KHAN » AGED ABOUT SIL YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O OLD MANDAL SHIMOGA CITY. © a _... PETITIONER (BY. SRLS.V.PRAKAS#, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATARA. > REPRESENTED BY ITS. ~ PRINCIPAL SECRETARY >. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE . MLS. BUILDING . DR.AMBEDRKAR VEEDHI TORCCIRCEE BANGALOR!® ~ 560 001. . PRUE DEPL PTY COMMISSIONER . SHIMOGA DISTRICT - SHIMOGA. canes -- 3: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ~. SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION SHIMOGA 4. TH TAHASILDAR SHIMOGA TALUR SHIMOGA. RESPONDENTS
[BY SRUSHASHIDHAR S KARMADILHCGP FOR R1] TO R4} hs * wR oR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARNC LES: 226 --_ & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH 4. PF RAVER TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER DATED 28.06.1994 SAID TO HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE 32 RESPON (DENT IN CASE NO.LRE/CR.25/ 1988-89 FORFEITING THE LANDS IN SY.NO.26/9 MEASURING 3 ACRES 8 GU NTAS 1SUTAT ED- AT HALALAKBAVALLI VILLACH. NEDIG E HIND ~HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 1S NON- EST AND NOT BINDING ON THE PE TETIONE: R. ; : 2 THIS W.P. COMING: Oo! M POR PREL. IMINARY HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE. THES OLLOW: ING eo R be Ro 'The petitioner "was. "be for € "this Court on two oceasions. In. by oth "the writ petitions a direction was sought to the Competent Authority to issue a certified copy of the order passed dnder Sections 79-A & 79-65 of
- the Karnatake. Land Reforms Act. Notwithstanding such a direction x 'ihe. petitioner has been issued with an endorsement | tidic ating that no such order is to be ee found. Anpnexure-O dated 14.12.2006 anc Annexiure-W 'dated..5.1.2011 are the endorsements. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the third time.
2. Phe matter arises in the following mariner: a y} ty' RU haut The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of 3S acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.20/9 pursuant toa registered sale deed dated 1.7.1983. Indeed. .the" . pelilioners sold another land belonging to, hee i.6o¢ Sy.No.33 measuring 3 acres 4 gunitas. pursuant tO a> registered sale deed dated 1.7.14 988, On the basis: S of the sale deed dated 1.7.1989 the name of the peutidiér was entered in the revenue records: Itappasts proceedings were initiated in' t LRP, / CR 2E/ /1985-89 under Sections 79-A & 79-5 « of 'the Act a and the and was forfeited inasmuch as th ere. "was. a 'Viola tion of the said provisions. : On the basis of the said order the mutation entry was revoked. : 'H aving regard to the situation as "observed earlier, the petitioner we was before this Court. It is. ase! wi : ae . extract endorsements issued by the of - ompetent A uthority, which is at Annexure-O & Annexure W og a AS
3. Indeed, if the petitioner were to question the : order pasded by th Competent Authority forteiting the land und ot Sections f3-A & 79-B, she is required to be armed with an order so as to question it before the ~ 'Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of an orde c thee peiilioner certainly cannot fie an appeal nor : Can seek dispensation of the same. Having regard to the "endorsements issued, I am of the view that the proceedings are required to be terminated reserving Sat liberty to the Competent Authority to issue fresh notice and proceed in accordance with law. Hence, the folowing order is passed:
(i) Petition stands disposed of. fi) <A writ of prohibition is > issued to terminate the proceedings. in.
LRF/CR.25/1988-89 and ihe forfeiture is set aside.
(if) It is open fer the Competent Autherity- respondent-No.S to initiaté proceedings ~under Séction. 79-A and Section 79-B . afresh if if is. necessary.
(iv) Rule is issued and made absolute, 'Mr.ShashiGhar S Karmadi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents i to 4 is .. permitted ta file memo of appearance within four weeks. 44 Pe Sd/ JUDGE So