Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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 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 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 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.