- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10196 WP No. 1126 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1126 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MB SUNIL S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT NO.63, LAKSHMI JANARDHANA TEMPLE ROAD, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA-571401. PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA L.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K MANJUNATH.,HCGP, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30-10-2024 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU, IN APPEAL NO. 138/2022, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ALSO PASSED THE ORDER DATED 10-03-2020 IN CASE NO.L.R.F.53/ 2019-2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10196 WP No. 1126 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondents. 2. The petition is filed challenging the order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru by which the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal that had been filed challenging an order of vesting passed under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’) in contravention of Section 79A and 79B of the Act. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal placing reliance on Section 12(2) of the Amendment Ordinance Act, 2020 has come to the conclusion that the proceedings can be declared to have abated only if an appeal was pending as on the date of the ordinance and since no appeal was pending on that day it would have no jurisdiction. 3. The order of the Assistant Commissioner by which it directed the vesting of the land in contravention of the Section 79A and 79B of the Act, indicates that the petitioner did not file any objections, though it is stated in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10196 WP No. 1126 of 2025 the order that notices were served on the petitioner. The fact however remains that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to contest the proceedings initiated with the Assistant Commissioner. 4. In my view, therefore, the said order cannot be sustained, accordingly quashed. In the normal course, the matter would be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, but in view of the subsequent amendment which declared that all proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act which stand abated, the proceedings under Assistant Commissioner shall also stand abated. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22