Karnataka High Court
B. M. Anantha vs The Assistant Commissioner on 21 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16449
WP No. 25593 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25593 OF 2024 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. B. M. ANANTHA
S/O LATE V.M. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
2. ASHA KIRAN
D/O SRI. B.M. ANANTHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. KANCHAN
D/O SRI B.M. ANANTHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO. 122
6TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT
BHOOPASANDRA
Digitally BENGALURU-560 094.
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: 4. KAVITHA
HIGH D/O VENUGOPAL REDDY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT 479, 13TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034.
5. SUNITHA
D/O VENUGOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 255
36TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16449
WP No. 25593 of 2024
BOTH ALSO R/AT NO 181
LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.V. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVANA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. RAVI ARYA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
C/O D.L. DALMIYA
R/AT NO. 808, A BLOCK
BRIGADE GATEWAY, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 055.
3. SHOBHA
W/O LATE GOPAL RAJU
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
4. LOKESH RAJU
S/O LATE GOPAL RAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. RUPA
D/O LATE GOPAL RAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT GEDDALAHALLI
RMV II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 094.
6. GEETHANJALI
EX W/O B.M. ANANTHA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 126
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16449
WP No. 25593 of 2024
VINAYAKA LAYOUT, BHOOPASANDRA
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
R2 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 IN REV. APPEAL NO.
239/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(ANNEXURE-AA) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the purchaser--Ravi Arya had contravened the provisions under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') and had purchased agricultural land.
2. The petitioners--who are the subsequent purchasers from one Gopal Raju, submit that the impugned -4- NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to late Gopal Raju--the petitioners' vendor and the entire proceedings took place after respondent No.2 sold the property to the said Gopal Raju and after the land was converted and a layout plan was approved. It is averred that the proceedings were initiated 11 years after the alleged transaction and hence, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is highly belated as such, the same is illegal and cannot be sustained.
3. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner indicates that the same was passed without any notice to the purchaser--Ravi Arya. The notice was stated to have been served on the land and in the absence of affording an opportunity to the petitioner for production of documents, an order was passed on 30.07.1998 by the Assistant Commissioner ordering the land to be vested. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024
4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has also dismissed the appeal.
5. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order without affording an opportunity of filing objections to the petitioner. This order has, however, been confirmed by the KAT.
6. Since the issue involved is one of vesting of the land, obviously the person who would be affected by the order requires an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Consequently, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the KAT would not be sustainable.
7. In the normal course, the orders impugned would have been set aside and the matter would be -6- NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the proceedings afresh.
8. However, since the pendency in this Writ Petition Section 79A and 79B of the Act were omitted and all the proceedings were ordered to be abated, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter and it is hereby held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in violation of Section 79A and B of the Act shall stand abated. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.
9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114