Sri. Muhammad Najad vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Muhammad Najad vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2022

Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda

                          1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                       BEFORE

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

       WRIT PETITION No.11874/2022 (LR)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. MUHAMMAD NAJAD
       S/O. KUNHAMMAD KUTTY,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

2.     SRI. MUHAMMAD NAJMAL
       S/O. KUNHAMMAD KUTTY,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

       BOTH ARE R/O. KADEKKACHALIL,
       KUTTIADI VILLAGE,
       VATAKARA TALUK,
       KOZHIKODE,
       KERALA-673508.
                                      ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P.MAHESHA, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THE SECRETARY,
       REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
       M S BUILDING,
       DR. B.R. AMBEDKARVEEDHI,
       BANGALORE-560 001.
                                 2
2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
      KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION,
      KOLLEGALA-571 440,
      CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.

3.    THE TAHSILDAR
      GUNDLUPET TALUK-571111,
      CHAMARAJANAGARA 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
THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION, KOLLEGALA
IN CASE NO.LRF.442/2015-16 DTD 25.10.2016 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C ETC.,

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

1. The order of forfeiture passed by the Assistant Commissioner is questioned in this appeal.

2. The Assistant Commissioner had forfeited the lands to the Government, on the ground that, the lands purchased by the petitioners were in contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners in response to the notice had appeared 3 personally on 29.03.2016 and had also produced the documents.

4. It is stated that the Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, straight away proceeded to reserve the matter for order and no date was fixed for pronouncement of the order. He submits that thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order and this order was never notified to the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the order sheet which has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicates that the petitioner did appear on 29.03.2016 through his representative and on that date, documents were submitted. The order sheet also indicates that the Assistant Commissioner had indeed straight away posted the matter for orders without fixing any date for pronouncement. There is no record of hearing arguments of the petitioner in the order sheet.

6. In my view, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had appeared through his representative, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have afforded him an opportunity of hearing before passing the orders. The Assistant Commissioner has also committed an error in not communicating the order that he had passed to facilitate filing of an appeal immediately.

7. In that view of the matter, the order of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set-aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, who shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and also to file objections and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. The petitioner shall appear either by himself or through his counsel before the concerned Assistant Commissioner on 04.07.2022.

SD/-

JUDGE GH

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court