- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9739 WP No. 1348 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI P JOILRAJ S/O PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.326, 4TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MAHAGANAPATHINAGARA, WEST CARD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE THASILDAR MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI-562120. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562159. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN CASE NO. L.R.F.(79) A AND B (MAA) 22/2015-16, DATED Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9739 WP No. 1348 of 2025 14.12.2016, BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS OR CHANGES MADE IN REVENUE ENTRIES IF ANY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of forfeiture was passed on the ground that Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been contravened is the subject matter of this writ petition. 2. This order was passed on 07.12.2016 without hearing the petitioner. In the impugned order, which is produced at Annexure - D, it is stated that two notices were served, but the petitioner was absent and, thereafter, the matter was posted for orders and the impugned order of forfeiture is passed. The said impugned order itself indicates that the petitioner has not even heard in the matter and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9739 WP No. 1348 of 2025 3. Consequently, the impugned order will have to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 4. In my view, since Section 79A and 79B has been omitted from the statute, there would be no need to remand the matter and the proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner would accordingly stand abated. 5. This petition is accordingly allowed. 6. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16