Karnataka High Court
Maideen Imam Sab Sheikh S/O Imamsab ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2022
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.100664 OF 2022 (KLR-RP)
BETWEEN:
MAIDEEN IMAM SAB SHEIKH
S/O. IMAMSAB SHEIKH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT. NO.240/3A, SALAMATE NAGAR
NEAR PATEL SAW MILL
SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581402.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
UTTAR KANNADA SUB-DIVISION
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT - 581402.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
SIRSI TALUK
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT - 581402.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE
:2:
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.69/2014 DATED
12.04.2019 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION
WITH COSTS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 12.08.2009 under Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which was confirmed in an appeal filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.69 of 2014 dated 12.04.2019.
2. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land bearing Sy. No.292 measuring 0-2-8 acres situate at Sirsi village, Uttara Kannada district in terms of a sale deed dated 24.03.2008. Thereafter a proceeding under Section 81 for violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Act was initiated by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 in terms of his order dated 12.08.2009 held that the petitioner had violated Section 79A and B of the Act and ordered forfeiture of the aforesaid land. An appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.69 of 2014 was also rejected. :3: Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the Ordinance Act No.9 of 2020, this writ petition qualified to be a pending proceeding and therefore the proceedings was deemed to have abated. Therefore, he submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 and the Tribunal be set at naught.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and therefore, the proceedings have concluded and thus the Amendment Act does not apply.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 which was confirmed by the Tribunal indicates that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 79A and 79B of the Act. The same is challenged by him in the present writ petition and therefore, the writ petition qualifies to be treated as "a pending proceeding" and in view of the deletion of Section :4: 79A and 79B of the Act with effect from 01.03.1974, all proceedings have abated.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated 12.08.2009 which was confirmed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.69 of 2014 by order dated 12.04.2019 are set aside. Consequently, the revenue authorities are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in column No.9 and 12 of the land bearing Sy.No.292 of Sirsi Village, Uttara Kannada District measuring 0-2½ anas within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm