IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

WRIT PETITION NO.201473/2021 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

TAHASEEN KAUSAR

W/O MOHAMMED ABDUL LAIQUE

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD

R/O. H.NO. 5-2-180

DULHAN DARWAZA ROAD

BARUD GALLI

BIDAR-585401.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

M.S. BUILDING

BENGALURU-560001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BIDAR DISTRICT

BIDAR-585401

3.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BIDAR-585401.

4.

THE TAHASILDAR

BIDAR-585401.

W.P.No.201473/2021

2

5.

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR

MIRZAPUR VILLAGE

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

06.02.2020 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BEARING

FILE NO. REV/LND/CR-06/2019-20 AS AT ANNEXURE-G, INSOFAR

RELATES TO THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.29/6 (29/1)

MEASURING 4 ACRES 3 GUNTAS SITUATED AT MIRZAPUR (T)

VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR, PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT

AUTHORITY AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON, IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THROUGH PHYSICAL/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING, THIS DAY

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the

order dated 06.02.2020 passed by the second respondent,

Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, forfeiting the land of the

petitioner in Sy.No.29/6 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas situated at

Mirzapur (T) village, Taluk and District Bidar, alleging that the

said land has been used for non-agricultural purposes without

following due process of law and in violation of Section 95 of

W.P.No.201473/2021

3

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (henceforth for brevity

referred to as 'the Act').

2.

The petitioner claims herself to be the owner of land

in Sy.No.29/6 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas situated at Mirzapur

(T) village, taluk and district Bidar, having purchased the same

under registered sale deed dated 21.04.2018. It is her case that

the revenue records were got mutated in her favour, after she

purchased the said land under the said registered sale deed.

However, the respondents without giving any notice or notifying

her in any manner, have proceeded to pass the impugned order

at Annexure-G forfeiting her land along with land of various

other persons alleging that they have violated Section 95 of the

Act and without any authority by law had diverted the nature

and use of the land.

3.

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

notice for all the respondents.

4.

Heard the submissions from both sides.

5.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that before passing the impugned order forfeiting

her land to the State, the Deputy Commissioner was required to

W.P.No.201473/2021

4

issue notice and after receiving the response to the notice

should have proceeded, in accordance with law.

6.

The

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

appearing for the respondents though submitted that notice has

been admittedly issued by the fourth respondent, Tahsildar, but

could not able to convince the Court that the Tahsildar is the

competent person to issue notice before forfeiting the land

under Section 95 of the Act.

7.

A perusal of the impugned order would go to show

that the second respondent, who is the Deputy Commissioner in

his order of forfeiting the lands of the petitioner and various

other land owners has stated that since all those land owners

have violated the provisions of Section 95 of the Act and have

put up construction without obtaining permission for conversion

of the land for non-agricultural purposes has stated that noti