- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13059 WP No. 24819 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 24819 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LEELAVATHI W/O SRI N K PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NAVILE BASAVAPURA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-577301 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S. SIDDALINGAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577401. 3. TAHASILDAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIKARIPURA, SHIVAMOGGA-577427. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIKARIPURA SHIVAMOGGA-577427 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13059 WP No. 24819 of 2024 ORDER DATED 17/02/2020 IN BHU.SU(2)VIVA.46/2019-20 PASSED BY R2 AS PER ANNX-E, CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND DECLARE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY R2 IS VOID AND ILLEGAL AS PER ANNEXURE-E, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of vesting made under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') for alleged contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, is challenged before this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2019 and through out the proceedings, the petitioner had no notice of the proceedings and without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, since the petitioner was not even heard and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13059 WP No. 24819 of 2024 3. The petitioner has produced copy of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure 'E'. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and sought for passing of an order as per the sale deed and other supporting documents. 5. The Assistant Commissioner observed that the petitioner is working as a Teacher and as per the income certificate issued by the Tahasildar, the petitioner's family has the income within the ceiling limit. 6. However, it was noticed that the petitioner has not produced the permission letter to be obtained from the Competent Authority before purchasing the immovable property in question nor the document to establish the source of income to purchase the same nor any document to prove that their family belongs to agriculturists family. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13059 WP No. 24819 of 2024 7. The material on record indicates that the petitioner did own agricultural lands and the only reason why the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order of forfeiture is that the petitioner being a Teacher had not secured prior approval of his employer for purchasing the property. 8. In my view, this cannot be a reason to attract the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. 9. If the petitioner has already possessed agricultural lands, she would be entitled to be considered as an agriculturist, even though she was working as a Teacher. A Teacher can definitely ensure that her lands are cultivated through hired labours and if her family hails from an agriculturist background, it is not uncommon in our country for a professional to have agricultural lands and carry on agricultural activities. 10. If the petitioner had violated any conduct Rule, she would suffer the consequence from her employer but, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13059 WP No. 24819 of 2024 that cannot attract the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. 11. I am therefore of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as such, the same is accordingly quashed. 12. In the normal circumstances, the matter would have to be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. However, in the year 2020, the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19611 was amended and Sections 79A, 79B and 79C thereof were omitted; the said amendment also made it clear that all cases pending as on the date of promulgation of the Amendment Act pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B and 79C would stand abated. 13. Since the matter, on remand now, would revive the proceedings, the same would stand abated by virtue of 1 The Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020 [Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020] Section 12. Savings:- (1) x x x (2) All cases pending before any Court, tribunal or other authority competent under the provisions of the Principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13059 WP No. 24819 of 2024 Section 12(2) of the Amendment Act2. Consequently, it is held that the impugned proceedings against the petitioner shall stand abated. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 15. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 2 The Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020