- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17298 WP No. 8869 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.8869 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. ANITHA D/O SUNDARARAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT ANTARASANTE VILLAGE ANTARASNTE HOBLI H D KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.DEVENDRA .N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNASUR DIVISION HUNASURU-571105. 3. TAHASILDAR H.D. KOTE TALUK H.D. KOTE-571114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI .S, HCGP) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17298 WP No. 8869 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2024 BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU IN REV. MISC. NO. 14/22 (CH-1) AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 she had contravened the provisions of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act") and had purchased the agricultural land. 2. The petitioner submits that without providing sufficient opportunity and in her absence, the impugned order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering vesting of land in question. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by said order, preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17298 WP No. 8869 of 2025 Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has also dismissed the appeal. 4. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of filing objections to the petitioner. This order has, however, been confirmed by the KAT. 5. 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. 6. 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 & B of the Act were omitted by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17298 WP No. 8869 of 2025 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. 7. In view of the above, the Revenue Authorities to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue record. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 9. In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9