- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15998 WP No. 2497 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2497 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI T K VASU S/O GOPAL (LATE) AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MALURU VILLAGE, SUNTIKOPPA HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571236 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGANNATH PRASAD UDGATA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB DIVISION, KODAGU DISTRICT 571201 2. THE TAHASILDAR SOMWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571236 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT SAVITHRAMMA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSITTUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 07.08.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.527 OF 2014 VIDE ANENXURE-A TO THE PETITION AND ALLOW THE APPEAL NO.527 OF 2014 FILE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15998 WP No. 2497 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that he had contravened the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act") and had purchased the agricultural land. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by said order, preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has also dismissed the appeal. 3. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any relevant documents despite service of notice. In essence, the impugned order passed was without hearing or without considering the claim of the purchaser. This order has, however, been confirmed by the KAT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15998 WP No. 2497 of 2020 4. Since the order of vesting would take away the rights of the ownership of land in question, the appropriate course would be to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the KAT would not be sustainable. Accordingly, they are set aside. 5. In the normal course, the orders impugned would have to be set aside and the matter would have to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration of the proceedings afresh. However, since Sections 79A and 79B of the Act were omitted by virtue of an amendment to the Act, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Assistant Commissioner and hence, the impugned proceedings initiated shall stand abated. 6. In view of the above, the Revenue Authorities to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15998 WP No. 2497 of 2020 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 95