- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 25593 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. B. M. ANANTHA S/O LATE V.M. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. ASHA KIRAN D/O SRI. B.M. ANANTHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. KANCHAN D/O SRI B.M. ANANTHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO. 122 6TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT BHOOPASANDRA BENGALURU-560 094. 4. KAVITHA D/O VENUGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT 479, 13TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034. 5. SUNITHA D/O VENUGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 255 36TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 BOTH ALSO R/AT NO 181 LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU – 560 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.V. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. RAVI ARYA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS C/O D.L. DALMIYA R/AT NO. 808, A BLOCK BRIGADE GATEWAY, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 055. 3. SHOBHA W/O LATE GOPAL RAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 4. LOKESH RAJU S/O LATE GOPAL RAJU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. RUPA D/O LATE GOPAL RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT GEDDALAHALLI RMV II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 094. 6. GEETHANJALI EX W/O B.M. ANANTHA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 126 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 VINAYAKA LAYOUT, BHOOPASANDRA BENGALURU – 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; R2 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2024 IN REV. APPEAL NO. 239/2022 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-AA) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, 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 petitioners by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the purchaser—Ravi Arya had contravened the provisions under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) and had purchased agricultural land. 2. The petitioners—who are the subsequent purchasers from one Gopal Raju, submit that the impugned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner without notice to late Gopal Raju—the petitioners’ vendor and the entire proceedings took place after respondent No.2 sold the property to the said Gopal Raju and after the land was converted and a layout plan was approved. It is averred that the proceedings were initiated 11 years after the alleged transaction and hence, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is highly belated as such, the same is illegal and cannot be sustained. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner indicates that the same was passed without any notice to the purchaser—Ravi Arya. The notice was stated to have been served on the land and in the absence of affording an opportunity to the petitioner for production of documents, an order was passed on 30.07.1998 by the Assistant Commissioner ordering the land to be vested. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) and the KAT has also dismissed the appeal. 5. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Commissioner would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order without affording an opportunity of filing objections to the petitioner. This order has, however, been confirmed by the KAT. 6. Since the issue involved is one of vesting of the land, obviously the person who would be affected by the order requires an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 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 been set aside and the matter would be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16449 WP No. 25593 of 2024 remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for consideration of the proceedings afresh. 8. However, since the pendency in this Writ Petition Section 79A and 79B of the Act were omitted and all the proceedings were ordered to be abated, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter and it is hereby held that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in violation of Section 79A and B of the Act shall stand abated. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. 9. 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.: 1 Sl No.: 114