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.201419/2021 (KLR-CON)

BETWEEN:

KALYANRAO S/O RAMRAO

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O RAMNAGAR CHIDRI, BIDAR

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

REVENUE DEPARTMENT

M.S. BUILDING

AMBEDKAR VEEDI

BANGALORE-560001

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR-585401

3.

THE TAHSHILDAR

BIDAR

TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585401

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARNABASSAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)

W.P.No.201419/2021

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KAM/LND/CR-06/2019-20 DATED 06.02.2020

ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE

ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS IT CONCERNS TO PETITIONERS LAND AT

SL.NO.30 AND ETC.

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.86/2 measuring 1 acre 1 gunta situated at

Odwada village of Bidar Taluk and District, 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

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (henceforth for brevity

referred to as 'the Act').

2.

The petitioner in his petition and his learned counsel

in his arguments mainly contend a single point that before

passing the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner ought to

W.P.No.201419/2021

3

have issued notice to the petitioner which he has not done. As

such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3.

The

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

appearing for the respondents though submitted that notice has

been admittedly issued by the third 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.

4.

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 notice

was given to all those land owners by the Tahsildar at Bidar.

5.

Section 96 of the Act, reads as follows:

"96. Penalty for using agricultural land

for other purpose without permission.—(1) If

any land assessed or held for the purpose of

agriculture be diverted or used for any other

W.P.No.201419/2021

4

purpose without the permission of the Deputy

Commissioner, or before the expiry of the period

prescribed in sub-section (5) of section 95, the

Deputy Commissioner may summarily evict the

occupant and the person responsible for the

diversion from the land so diverted and any

building or other construction erected thereon shall

also, if not removed after such written notice as

the Deputy Commissioner may deem reasonable,

be liable to forfeiture or to summary removal.

The occupant and the person responsible for the

diversion shall also be liable to pay, such penalty

not exceeding one thousand rupees as the

Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the rules

made by the State Government in this behalf,

direct.

(2) If any land assessed or held for the

purpose of agriculture has been diverted for any

other purpose in co