Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner vs Dr Zahoor Ahmed on 16 January, 2021
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
W.P.No.10940/2005 (LR)
BETWEEN
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD SUB DIVISION,
DHARWAD
2. THE THASILDAR
HUBLI TALUK, HUBLI.
3. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR
NADAKACHERI CHEBBI,
HUBLI TALUK.
....PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.VINAYAK KULKARNI, AGA)
AND
1. DR ZAHOOR AHMED
MAJOR,
2. FAZALUR RAHIMAN
MAJOR,
2
3. FAIZUDDIN
MAJOR,
4. ASMATH PASHA
MAJOR,
ALL ARE SONS OF
SHAFIUUINSAB SAUDAGAR @ INAMDAR
R/O JAIPRAKASHNAGAR, HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
SPL.POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER:
NISAR AHMED INAMDAR
R/O JAIPRAKASHNAGAR,
HUBLI
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WIRT OR DIRECTION AS THE
CASE MAY BE QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.02.2001
APPEAL NO.417/2000 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXRE-B AND GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE
RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed in the nature of writ of certiorari calling in question the order dated 05.02.2001 passed in Appeal No.417/2000 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred as 'KAT' for short) vide Annexure-B.
2. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have purchased agricultural land stated in the writ petition. The appellants are of the opinion that there is violation of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as 'Act' for short). Therefore, the petitioner No.1 had initiated proceedings for causing violation of the above stated provisions. Upon finding that the violation has caused as per the provisions as above stated, the petitioner No.1 had passed an order on 04.09.2000 holding that the land is vested with the Government vide Annexure-A. The respondents - 1 to 4 herein have challenged this order passed by the petitioner No.1 vide Annexure-A before the KAT in appeal No.417/2000 and the KAT has allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 and set aside the order passed by the petitioner No.1 by passing order dated 05.02.2001 in the said 4 appeal. Challenging the said order dated 05.02.2001 in appeal No.417/2000 passed by KAT vide Annexure - B, the present writ petition is preferred by State.
3. The writ petition is mainly revolving around provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act. But upon perusing Annexure-A order passed by the petitioner No.1 - Assistant Commissioner, it is only observed that there is violation of Section 79A of the Act, but did not discuss anything about the violation of provisions of Sections 79B and 80 of the Act. When this being the factual situation, the question to be considered by this Court in the above said writ petition is whether the order passed by the KAT is correct or not.
4. The State of Karnataka has passed the Ordinance, namely, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 and which is published in the Karnataka Gazette on 02.11.2020 as Karnataka Ordinance No. 23 of 2020 and thereby in the Ordinance Section 79A of the Act is omitted. Therefore, by promulgating such ordinance, the provision under Section 79A of 5 the Act is removed. Then substantial effect of the proceeding is stated in Section 12 of the Ordinance which reads as follows:
" 12. Savings.- (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 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 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated."
5. By clause (2) of Section 12 of the Act, the case pending before any Court or Tribunal or before any other Authority pertaining to Section 79A and 79B and 79C shall stand abated as per the said Ordinance stated supra.
6. The matters pertaining to violation of provisions as stated above are hereby abated by virtue of operation of law as per the said Ordinance. Therefore, the present writ petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as 6 nothing survives for consideration by virtue of Karnataka Ordinance 2020.
7. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the said Ordinance now challenged before this Court on its constitutional validity and is pending before this Court and in case if this Ordinance is quashed then an opportunity be given to the State to revive this petition.
8. I find force in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate. Therefore, keeping apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Government Advocate, in case if Karnataka Ordinance 2020 (above stated) is quashed/set aside or declared null and void as ultra vires to the Constitution of India, then in that event the present writ petition may be revived for consideration in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE lad