The failure to adhere to principles of natural justice renders an administrative order void ab initio, lacking legal sanctity and protection under statutory provisions.

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the owner of the land in question assailing the order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, who has nullified the sale deed obtained by the petitioner on the ground that she is not an agriculturist and that her non-agricultural income exceeds the prescribed limit under the Principal Act. This order vide Annexure-D is impugned in the captioned writ petition.

2. The enquiry initiated by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner invoking Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’), prima-facie, is found to be fundamentally flawed. This fundamental flaw is, in fact, acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner himself in the course of the order impugned before this Court. The said para would be relevant and therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the relevant paragraphs, which would have direct bearing in the light of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment), Ordinance, 2020 (for short ‘Ordinance, 2020) and also the Ordinance incorporated under the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020 .

3. The Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated, leading to the omission of Sections 79A , 79B, and 79C from the Principal Act. In doing so, Section 13 of the Ordinance, 2020 provided a savings clause, ensuring that all cases disposed of on or before the date of its publication would remain unaffected. Additionally, it stipulated that cases pending as of the publication date, along with any consequential proceedings, would abate.

4. This Court finds it appropriate to extract the savings provision contained in the Ordinance, 2020, which states as follows:

"13. Savings. - (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1^st day of March, 1974, the cases already disposed off before the publication of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 shall not in any way be affected.

(2) All cases pending on the date of publication of this Act pertaining to Sections 79A , 79B and 79C and consequential thereof shall stand abated."

5. Since this Ordinance, 2020 is now incorporated in the Principal Act under the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020 , this Court deems it fit to take note of Section 12 , which are the savings provisions and Section 13 deal with the Repeal and Savings.

Section 12 of the Amending Act, 56 of 2020 reads as under;

12. Savings - (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1stday of March, 1974, all cases finally disposed off before the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) shall remain unaffected by the said Ordinance.

(2) All cases pending before any Court, tribunal or other authority competent under the provisions of the Principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to Sections 79A , 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated.

6. Similarly, Section 13 of the Amending Act, 56 of 2020 reads as under;

13. Repeal and Savings.-(1) The Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 23 of 2020) is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the principal Act, as amended by the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under principal Act, as amended by this Act.

7. Any quasi-judicial authority, while conducting an enquiry, is required to adhere to the fundamental principles of fairness and must strictly follow the procedures established under the relevant Act or statute. The principles of natural justice serve as a cornerstone of any such proceedings, ensuring that affected parties receive due process. Under the Principal Act, the respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner was vested with the authority to conduct an enquiry regarding the purchase of agricultural land by ineligible citizens. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner, in purported exercis