Karnataka High Court
Mr Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.8974 OF 2021 (LR)
BETWEEN:
MR. PRADEEP KUMAR
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDING OF
CHANAMBAYIL VEEDU
OORUPOKYA POST, ATINGAL,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT
KERALA STATE - 695 104
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
MR. VINAYAKAN K
S/O K.C. KUTTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3, SHANTHA NIVASA
RAMAIH GARDEN, 24TH MAIN,
J.P. NAGARA, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9900947888
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.B.AJIT, ADVOCATE FOR GPA HOLDER OF
PETITIONER)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY TAHASILDAR
KANAKAPURA TALUK
KANAKAPURA - 562 117
2
EMAIL. [email protected]
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION
RAMANAGAR - 562 159
EMAIL NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, A.G.A.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7TH DECEMBER 2016 IN CASE
NO.L.R.F.79(A) & (B) 13/13-14 ON THE FILE OF THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION
RAMANAGAR (2ND RESPONDENT) AS PER ANNEXURE A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging an Order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') forfeiting the land bearing Sy. No.14/2 of Medamaranahalli Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District measuring 1 acre 19 guntas.
3
3. The petitioner has stated that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') has issued an official memorandum dated 11.09.2020 stating that in view of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no appeal would be entertained against an order passed under Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Act of 1961 and therefore, refused to entertain the appeal against the impugned Order.
4. By virtue of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961 have been deleted from the date of its coming into force. However, under Section 12 such deletion does not affect concluded proceedings. An order passed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961, is appealable under Section 118 of the Act of 1961. So long as the remedy of an appeal is provided under the Act of 1961 as aforesaid, the Tribunal cannot issue any Circular/Memorandum refusing to 4 entertain the appeal. Therefore, it is for the Tribunal to ascertain whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 is concluded or not and whether the proceedings has abated or not.
5. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed off directing the petitioner to file necessary appeal before the Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed, the Tribunal shall consider the case in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. The time consumed in pursuing this Writ Petition shall be set off while calculating the limitation.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE NBM