Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammad Murthuza Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2023
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 25633 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.25633 OF 2022 (LR)
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAMMAD MURTHUZA AHMED
SON OF LATE MOHAMMAD HASIM
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
RESIDING AT NO.335,
PATTANWADI MOHALLA, MURTHI MAHAL ROAD
CHANNAPATNA TOWN-562160
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRDURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA-577501
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
HIRIYUR TALUK, HIRIYUR TOWN-577598
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP)
-2-
WP No. 25633 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AN
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2009 PASSED IN
CASE.LRM/79(A)/CR-112/2008.09 PASSED BY THE R2
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION,
CHITRADURGA AND ANOTHER ORDER DATED 30.04.2015
PASSED IN APPEAL NO.717/2019 AND ANOTHER ORDER
DATED 23.11.2022 PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO.7/2015
BOTH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU,WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH
FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B, D AND E RESPECTIVELY AS
ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, MALAFIDE WITHOUT
APPLICATION OF MIND AND OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioner purchased 5 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.113/1 of Anesidri Village, Javanagondanahalli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, under a sale deed dated 11.02.2008. Proceedings were initiated by the competent authority i.e., the Assistant commissioner, Chitradurga Sub-division in case -3- WP No. 25633 of 2022 bearing No.79 (A) CR 112/2008-09 for violation of the proceedings contained in Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner contested the matter before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an order dated 30.06.2009 holding that the average agricultural income of the petitioner as on the date of the purchase of the land was Rs.7,30,152/- per annum and therefore the annual agricultural income of the petitioner exceeded the limit of Rs.2,00,000/- as provided in Section 79A and 79B and therefore the land was forfeited to the Government. The appeal filed at the hands of the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.717/2009 was dismissed by order dated 30.04.2015, while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the petitioner filed a review petition within the prescribed period of one month in Review Petition No.7/2015 and the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 rejecting the review petition on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out by the petitioner. However, the learned -4- WP No. 25633 of 2022 counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020, the provisions contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C have been omitted.
3. Learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to an order passed by this Court in the case of Sri R.Srinivas Raju /vs./ The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.24430/2021 dated 05.01.2022 and submits that the effect of the omission of the provisions contained in Section 79A, having regard to the saving clause contained in sub-section(2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act would be that, since the review petition was pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as on the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance, 2020 the proceedings initiated under Section 79A stood abated.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the petition papers, this Court finds substantial force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The review petition was -5- WP No. 25633 of 2022 filed within the prescribed period of one month from the date of the original order passed by the Tribunal. This aspect of the matter was neither canvassed before the Tribunal and nor considered by the Tribunal. However, it is permissible for the petitioner to raise such a contention before this Court, since the petitioner is required to be given the benefit of the amendment brought to the provisions contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act and having regard to the provisions contained in saving clause of the Amending Act i.e., sub-section(2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act clearly provides that if the proceedings are pending before any Court, Tribunal or any authority competent under the provisions of the Principal Act as on the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance, 2020, such proceedings shall stand abated.
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner finds favour with this Court. In view of the above admitted facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of the amendment and the consequential omission of the provisions contained in -6- WP No. 25633 of 2022 Sections 79A, 79B and 79C from the statute book and having regard to the provisions contained in the savings clause i.e., sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Amending Act, since the review petition legitimately filed at the hands of the petitioner in the year 2015 was pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as on the date of the amendment brought to Section 79A, all proceedings initiated under Section 79A against the petitioner stands abated.
6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated under Section 79A at the hands of the respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Chitradurga in case No.LRM/79(A)/CR-112/2008-09 is hereby quashed and set aside while stating that the proceedings stood abated as on the date of the amendment and omission of the provisions from the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Ordered accordingly.
-7-WP No. 25633 of 2022
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within a period of two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/-