Smt. Nagmala M Pattanashetty vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Nagmala M Pattanashetty vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2022

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                          1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

              W.P.No.1589/2021 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. NAGMALA M PATTANASHETTY,
W/O MANJUNATH P.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.39/2, A.S.V.N.V.S. COMPLEX,
OPP. S.B.M. HEAD OFFICE,
K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA PATTANA SHETTY, ADV.)


AND:

1.     THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       BY ITS SECRETARY,
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA,
       DODDABALLAPURA,
       BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
                             2
3.   THE TAHSILDAR,
     DEVANAHALLI,
     BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
                                      ... RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)


     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.8.2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A PASSED BY THE R-1 AND DIRECTING TO R-
3 TO CHANGE THE MUTATION AND RTC IN THE NAME OF
PETITIONER AS PER SALE DEED DATED 22.1.2015 IN
RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.104/10 PRESENTLY
NEW NO.104/11 MEASURING 32 GUTNAS SITUATED AT
VISHWANATHAPURA       VILLAGE   KUNDANA      HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK AND ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                       ORDER

1. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') by the Assistant Commissioner, which, ultimately culminated in an order dated 18.07.2018.

2. By the said order, the Assistant commissioner came to the conclusion that there was no contravention under 3 Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and therefore, the proceedings deserved to be quashed.

3. It appears that on a request by the Tahsildar, another proceeding was initiated also under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and the Assistant Commissioner in the said proceedings has come to the conclusion that there was indeed a contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and the land was therefore, required to be forfeited in favour of the State, free from all encumbrances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the proceedings had been initiated and dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, there could not have been a second order which was in direct contradiction with the earlier order.

5. In view of indisputable fact that the Assistant Commissioner had dropped the proceedings that he had initiated under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, by passing an order on 18.07.2018, the Assistant 4 Commissioner could not have passed a subsequent order on 17.08.2019 holding that there was contravention under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.

6. I am therefore, of the view that Annexure-A cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. Writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court