Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, J.
D. Ramanatha Reddy Dead by his LRs. Smt. R. Vanaja – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka by its Secretary Revenue Department – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 44418 of 2017
Decided On : 07-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. R.S. Ravi.
For the Respondent: Smt. M.C. Nagashree.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 300A - Karnataka Land Reforms Act - Sections 79A and 79B - Karnataka Land Reforms Rules - Rules 63 to 66 - Registered Sale-Deed – Transaction - Whether Assistant Commissioner is justified in exercising his power provisions of Section Karnataka Land Reforms Act to nullify registered Sale- Deed within reasonable period facts and circumstances of present case – Held, It is not in dispute that petitioners are owners property in question bearing measuring acre situated at village Bangalore North having purchased same registered Sale-Deed for valuable sale consideration from its previous owner - Same was recognized by competent authorities after following procedure as contemplated provisions of Section Act and Rules Karnataka Land Reforms Rules after satisfying themselves that sale made in favor petitioners was valid and necessary entries in record of rights were made specifying petitioners as owners of land in question - Thereafter Assistant Commissioner admittedly initiated proceedings year after lapse years holding that inspire of service of notice petitioners have not produced any documents to show that they are agricultural family and their annual income does not exceed - Impugned order passed by dismissing appeal on ground of technicality cannot be sustained - When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done on technicality - It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so - Petition allowed
ORDER :
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 31.3.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 879/2009, confirming the order dated 12.4.1996 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore in LRF (83) 47/1995-96 as per Annexures-A and B respectively.
(I) Facts of the Case
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 33/1, measuring 1 acre, situated at Kadiganahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk having purchased under the Registered Sale-Deed dated 24.4.1974 for a valuable sale consideration from its previous owner Sri. A. Rudraswamy and from the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. In pursuance of the registered Sale-Deed, all the revenue documents viz. Mutation Registrar, RTC including the Encumbrance Certificate stand in their name. When the things stood thus, they came to know that in the first week of August 2009, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 12.4.1996 holding that petitioners have violated the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Immediately, they obtained the certified copy of the said order on 12.8.2009 and an appeal was filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. In turn the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The respondents-State has not filed any objection to the main writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
(II) Arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners
5. Sri R.S. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 12.4.1996 as per Annexure-B is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice since no notice was served on the petitioners and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Authority (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAT’) on the ground of delay and laches cannot be sustained. He further contended that the Assistant Commissioner initiated proceedings against the petitioners after a lapse of 21 years which is impermissible under law. Therefore, the very initiation of proceedings under the provisions of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, is unreasonable and on that ground alone, the initiation of proceedings is liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Assistant Commissioner has not provided an opportunity to being heard to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The petitioners have not violated the terms and conditions of the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act while purchasing the land in question. He further contended that the petitioners belong to an agricultural family and their income would not exceed the limit prescribed under the provisions of Section 79A of the Act. He also contended that as on the date of purchase of the land, the income of the petitioners had not exceeded Rs. 12,000/-. He further contended though the KAT by the impugned order dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground of delay, it has categorically recorded a finding that the petitioners and their ancestors are agriculturists and they belong to an agricultural family and hence, they have not violated the provisions of Section 79A and 79B of the Act. The said finding of the KAT has not been challenged by the respondents-State and therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
(III) Arguments advanced by the Learned AGA for respondents-State
7. Per contra, Smt. M.C. Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advoca
