SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R.Devdas, J.
H.R. Ravichandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2948 of 2024 (LR)
Decided On : 01-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
C.N.Mahadeshwaran, Advocate, Allah Bakash, Advocate, Yaseen Babu, Advocate

The necessity of adhering to due process in administrative actions, particularly in forfeiture cases under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the impact of legislative amendments on ongoing proceedings.

Headnote:

FORFEITURE - KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT - The court addressed the legality of the forfeiture order under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, emphasizing the necessity of due process, including notice and opportunity for hearing. The court highlighted the importance of the amendments to the Act and the need for the Assistant Commissioner to reassess the case in light of these changes, ultimately remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order of forfeiture issued by the Assistant Commissioner for alleged violations of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, claiming lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Assistant Commissioner had issued a notice, but the petitioner did not appear. However, it noted the importance of providing a fair hearing and referenced a similar case where the court remanded the matter for reconsideration.

Issues: Whether the forfeiture order was valid given the lack of a proper hearing and the implications of the amendments to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due process must be followed in forfeiture proceedings, and the amendments to the Act necessitate a fresh evaluation of the case by the Assistant Commissioner.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the forfeiture order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration.

JUDGMENT

R.DEVDAS, J. -

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of forfeiture dtd. 9/7/2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore Sub-Division, Kandaya Bhavana under the provisions of Sec. 83 for violation of the provisions contained in Ss. 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a case where the impugned order of forfeiture has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7821/2021 has passed an order dtd. 16/8/2021 remanding the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

4. Admittedly, as on the date of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020, no proceedings were pending before any Court/authority.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate points out from the impugned order that notice was indeed issued to the petitioner and in spite of notice having been issued, the petitioner did not appear before the Assistant Commissioner.

6. It is the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that even as per the materials available on record, after forfeiture, the excess lands have been granted by the State Government to third parties. The Assistant Commissioner is therefore required to ascertain, whether the forfeited lands still remain with the State Government or has been granted to third parties. If the lands have been granted to third party, then subsec. (1) of Sec. 12 of the amending Act will apply to say that the proceedings have reached finality. Or otherwise, sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12 of the Amending Act will apply and all further proceedings shall be declared as abated by the Assistant Commissioner.

7. Having considered the submission of the learned Counsels and on perusing the judgment of the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.7821/2021, this Court finds that facts and circumstances in both these matters are quite similar and therefore, the benefit of the decision of the coordinate bench should also enure to the petitioner herein.

8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dtd. 15/9/2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in L.R.F No.83(AJ)24/2008-09 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent-Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner including the consequences of the subsequent amendment brought to the provisions of Ss. 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act in Karnataka Amendment No.56 of 2020.

9. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Assistant Commissioner on 1/3/2024, without waiting for further notice from the Assistant Commissioner.

Ordered accordingly.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top