Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32959 (KAR)

SMT. K. DHAKSHAYANI, v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/25671/2024 · 2025-04-25

N S Sanjay Gowda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17024 WP No. 25671 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO.25671 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. DHAKSHAYANI WIFE OF LATE K. KESHAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60, ALIKYA HOMES FLAT NO.302, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560078. 2. SRI. VIKRAM SON OF LATE K. KESHAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60, ALIKYA HOMES FLAT NO.302, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560078. 3. SMT. CHAITRA K. RAJU WIFE OF AJAY VERMA DAUGHTER OF LATE K. KESHAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.60, ALIKYA HOMES FLAT NO.302, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU SOUTH BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. T.N. VISHWANATHA, ADV.,) Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17024 WP No. 25671 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DIST-562159. 3. THE TAHASILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA-562117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 7.06.2017 IN CASE NO. LRF(K)104/2009-10 VIDE ANNX-C ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION RAMANAGARA, THE R-2 HEREIN. A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 17.11.2023 IN CASE REVENUE APPEAL NO. 78/2023 VIDE ANNX-H ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17024 WP No. 25671 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that they 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. 3. The petitioners submit that without providing sufficient opportunity and in their absence, the impugned order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner ordering vesting of land in question. 4. The petitioners, being aggrieved by said order, preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has also dismissed the appeal. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17024 WP No. 25671 of 2024 5. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any relevant documents despite service of notice. In essence, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was without hearing or without considering the claims of the purchasers. This order has, however, been confirmed by the KAT. 6. 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 petitioners. Consequently, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the KAT would not be sustainable. 7. 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17024 WP No. 25671 of 2024 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. 8. In view of the above, the Revenue Authorities to restore the names of the petitioners in the revenue record. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 10. In view of disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N.S. SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2