[2012] 5 Kar. L.J.

349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Present:

Huluvadi G. RameshJ.

M. Lokesh Chandra Tak

v.
State of Karnataka and Another

KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961, Section 79-A(5) Agricultural land purchased by
person alleged to be not entitled to acquire and own agricultural land Initiation of
proceedings by authority (Sub-Divisional Commissioner) for forfeiture of Proceeding initiated
and order passed for forfeiture and vesting of land in State, without notice to owner, held, is bad
in law, and order, therefore, to be set aside with liberty reserved to authority to pass fresh order
in accordance with law.

.k

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

co

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J., Held: A perusal of the impugned order is not indicative of service of
notice on the petitioner. However, the said order has been passed alleged violation of Section
79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, property has been forfeited by the order of the
Sub-Divisional Commissioner instructing the Tahsildar to follow the procedure as per Section
77 of the Act. It is to be seen, no such document is available for having served notice on the
petitioner and the order has been passed ex parte. . . . . . To enable the petitioner to have due
opportunity in view of the contention that he is from agricultural family and his income does
not exceed more than Rs. Two lakhs as on the date of purchase or prior thereto from other
sources than agriculture, the impugned order is set aside and also the consequential order to
make necessary entries in the name of the Government and the entry made if any, by the
order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner in the RTC stands quashed. . . . . . It is for the
authority to pass appropriate orders according to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. All contentions are left open to be urged. [Paras 4, 5 and 6]
Sri Shashidar S. Karmadi, Government Pleader for Respondents.for Respondent

w
w

Writ Petition No. 13637 of 2012 (LR).

ORDER

The Court, made the following:

Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order of the Sub- Divisional Commissioner,
Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore on 21-3-2009-Annexure-C.
2. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and also a resident of Bangalore and his
family owns agricultural land. The property in Sy. No. 143/1 (Old Sy. No. 143) situate at
Kestur Village, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District measures about 1 acre and he has
purchased the same on 14-12-2006. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment
and his name is entered in the RTC in respect of the Schedule property. He has also produced
Annexures-B and B1 indicating his name in Form 9 as well as in column (12) of the RTC.
According to him, behind his back and without notice to him, impugned order is passed at
Annexure-C on initiating proceedings under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act, 1961 read with Section 80 of the Act.

3. Heard the Government Pleader.

4. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-C is not indicative of service of notice on the
petitioner. However, the said order has been passed alleged violation of Section 79-A of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act and, exercising power under Section 83 of the Act, property has
been forfeited by the order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner instructing the Tahsildar to
follow the procedure as per Section 77 of the Act. It is to be seen, no such document is
available for having served notice on the petitioner and the order has been passed ex parte.
Page No: 350

co

5. To enable the petitioner to have due opportunity in view of the contention that he is from
agricultural family and his income does not exceed more than Rs. Two lakhs as on the date of
purchase or prior thereto from other sources than agriculture, the impugned
order-Annexure-C passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Doddaballapur is set aside
and also the consequential order to make necessary entries in the name of the Government
and the entry made if any, by the order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner in the RTC
stands quashed.

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

6. The petitioner to appear before the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Doddaballapur on or

before 11th June, 2012. Therefore, it is for the authority to pass appropriate orders according
to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All contentions are left open to
be urged.
7. Petition is allowed.

w
w

.k

8. Government Pleader to file memo of appearance in four weeks.

Page No: 351