- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.22804 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT.R.REKHA D/O MR.C.RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS REKHA NILAYA NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL SHANTHINAGAR DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA - 561203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.VAHEEDHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE R Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 ORDER DTD 14.09.2016 IN NO.LRF.SR(H).877/2015.16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNX-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the owner of the land in question assailing the order of respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, who has nullified the sale deed obtained by the petitioner on the ground that she is not an agriculturist and that her non-agricultural income exceeds the prescribed limit under the Principal Act. This order vide Annexure-D is impugned in the captioned writ petition. 2. The enquiry initiated by respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner invoking Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act, 1961’), prima-facie, is found to be fundamentally flawed. This fundamental flaw is, in fact, acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioner himself in the course of the order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 impugned before this Court. The said para would be relevant and therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the relevant paragraphs, which would have direct bearing in the light of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment), Ordinance, 2020 (for short ‘Ordinance, 2020) and also the Ordinance incorporated under the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020. "ಪಾಯವ ೆ ಕಯಪತದ ಕಂಡ ಾಸೆ ೋೕಸನು ೋಂಾ ತ ಅಂ"ೆ ಮೂಲಕ %ಾಗೂ ತಹ(ೕ)ಾ*+ ಮೂಲಕ ೋೕಸು ಕಳ-.ಸ)ಾ/ೆ. ೋಂಾ ತ ಅಂ"ೆಯು 01ೕಕೃ3ಾ/ರುವ ಬ ೆ6 7ಾ. ಇರುವ9ಲ. ಪಾಗಾಗೕ, ಪಾಗಳ ಪರ ವ:ೕಲ;ಾಗೕ "ಾರ<ೆ ೆ %ಾಜ;ಾ/ 3ಾವ9ೇ ಾಖ)ಾಗಳನು %ಾಜರುಪ?ಸಲು ಫಲ;ಾ/ರುAಾB;ೆ. %ಾಗೂ ಪ(ತ ಜCೕನನು ರೂ. 9,53,000/-ಗD ೆ ಕಯೆ ಪEೆದು*, ಕಯೆ ಪEೆದ .ಂನ 5 ವಷGಗಳ ಆಾಯದ ಬ ೆ6 3ಾವ9ೇ ಾಖ)ೆಗಳನು ಸ0ರುವ9ಲ. %ಾಗೂ 1-3-1974ರ .ಂನ ವಷGಗಳ ವIವJಾಯ ಾರರು ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆ6 3ಾವ9ೇ ಕಂಾಯ ಾಖ)ೆಗಳನು ಸಸೇ ಇರುವ9ದು ದೃಢಪMರುತBೆ. ಆದುದ* ಂದ ಕಾGಟಕ ಭೂ ಸುPಾರ<ಾ ಾ ೆ 79(ಎ)(1) ಮತುB 79(R) ಾ ೆಯ ಸSಷM ಉಲಂಘೆ3ಾ/ರುವ9ದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತBೆ. ಈ Wೕನ ಎ)ಾ ಅಂಶಗಳನು ಪ (ೕ0 ಕಾGಟಕ ಭೂ ಸುPಾರ<ಾ ಾ ೆ 1961ರ ಕಲಂ ೮೩ರ?ಯ ಪದತBಾ/ರುವ ಅ[ಾರವನು ಉಪ\ೕ/0ೊಂಡು ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡಂAೆ ಆೇಶ 7ಾ?ೆ." 3. The Ordinance, 2020 was promulgated, leading to the omission of Sections 79A, 79B, and 79C from the Principal Act. In doing so, Section 13 of the Ordinance, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 2020 provided a savings clause, ensuring that all cases disposed of on or before the date of its publication would remain unaffected. Additionally, it stipulated that cases pending as of the publication date, along with any consequential proceedings, would abate. 4. This Court finds it appropriate to extract the savings provision contained in the Ordinance, 2020, which states as follows: "13. Savings. - (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1st day of March, 1974, the cases already disposed off before the publication of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 shall not in any way be affected. (2) All cases pending on the date of publication of this Act pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B and 79C and consequential thereof shall stand abated." 5. Since this Ordinance, 2020 is now incorporated in the Principal Act under the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020, this Court deems it fit to take note of Section 12, which - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 are the savings provisions and Section 13 deal with the Repeal and Savings. Section 12 of the Amending Act, 56 of 2020 reads as under; 12. Savings - (1) Notwithstanding the omission of sections 79A, 79B and 79C with effect from 1stday of March, 1974, all cases finally disposed off before the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) shall remain unaffected by the said Ordinance. (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. Similarly, Section 13 of the Amending Act, 56 of 2020 reads as under; 13. Repeal and Savings.-(1) The Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 23 of 2020) is hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the principal Act, as amended by - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under principal Act, as amended by this Act. 7. Any quasi-judicial authority, while conducting an enquiry, is required to adhere to the fundamental principles of fairness and must strictly follow the procedures established under the relevant Act or statute. The principles of natural justice serve as a cornerstone of any such proceedings, ensuring that affected parties receive due process. Under the Principal Act, the respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner was vested with the authority to conduct an enquiry regarding the purchase of agricultural land by ineligible citizens. In the present case, the Assistant Commissioner, in purported exercise of powers under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, initiated an enquiry. However, at the very least, it was expected of respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any adverse order. The failure to provide such an opportunity raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and legality. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 8. The principles of natural justice dictate that no person shall be condemned unheard. A fair and unbiased hearing is a fundamental requirement before a decision is made that adversely affects the rights or interests of an individual. The three cardinal principles of natural justice, which must be adhered to in every case, include: (i) adequate notice of the proceedings; (ii) a fair hearing; and (iii) absence of bias. These principles ensure that decisions are made transparently and that the affected party has an opportunity to present their case effectively. 9. A careful examination of the impugned order reveals a glaring violation of these fundamental principles. The order unequivocally demonstrates that the petitioner was never notified about the proceedings, nor was an opportunity provided to present evidence to establish her eligibility to purchase agricultural land. The respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner, in his order, has acknowledged that his office failed to verify whether proper notices were served on the petitioner. This - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 admission alone is sufficient to conclude that the enquiry was conducted in a manner grossly inconsistent with procedural fairness. The absence of notice and the denial of a fair hearing vitiate the entire proceedings, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 10. The provisions of the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020, particularly the repeal and savings clauses, preserve actions taken by authorities under the Principal Act. However, such preservation applies only to actions undertaken in accordance with the law. Section 13(2) of the Act saves all actions done under the Principal Act, as amended by the Ordinance, provided that they are in conformity with legal requirements. The critical question before this Court is whether the impugned order is sustainable, given its blatant disregard for the principles of natural justice. It is evident that only those actions undertaken in the manner prescribed by law are protected under Section 13(2). Conversely, actions taken in violation - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 of procedural fairness cannot derive legitimacy from the savings clause. 11. The Apex in Court in A.K Kraipak case1 has categorically held that irrespective of whether the power conferred on a statutory body or tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial, a duty to act fairly, that is, in consonance with the fundamental principles of substantive justice is generally implied, because the presumption is that in a democratic polity wedded to the rule of law, the State or the legislature does not intend that in the exercise of their statutory powers its functionaries should act unfairly or unjustly. 12. The Apex Court in Court in Dr Bina Pani Dei case2 held that even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences, has to be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. 1 (1975) 1 SCC 421 2 (1974) 2 SCC 121 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 13. Since the impugned order is tainted by a gross violation of natural justice, it does not receive the protection of Section 13(2) of the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020. Further, it also does not fall within the ambit of Section 12(1) of the Act, which safeguards cases that were finally disposed of before the promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020. The phrase “finally disposed of” must necessarily be understood to mean cases where enquiries were conducted in the manner prescribed by law, culminating in an order that adhered to procedural fairness and the statutory mandates applicable at the time. In the present case, the respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner failed to conduct an enquiry in accordance with legal principles, and as such, the impugned order cannot be considered as one that was “finally disposed of” within the meaning of Section 12(1). Therefore, even under this provision, the impugned order does not enjoy statutory protection. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 14. The legal effect of a non-est order is that it cannot derive sustenance from either Section 12(1) or the savings clause under Section 13(2) of the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020. An order that is passed without following due process is void ab initio and cannot be retrospectively validated by the repeal and savings provisions. In the present case, the order impugned lacks any legal sanctity due to its fundamental procedural infirmities. 15. In light of the foregoing analysis, it is evident that the action of respondent No.2 – Assistant Commissioner in annulling the sale deed by invoking Sections 79A and 79B of the Act is legally unsustainable. The impugned order, being a non est order, cannot be saved under the Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020, particularly in view of the omission of Sections 79A and 79B from the Principal Act. Therefore, this Court finds that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it suffers from incurable legal defects, including non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:4847 WP No. 22804 of 2024 16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Consequently the order of Respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner nullifying the sale deed dated 01.01.2016 pertaining to SY.No.43/6 under Section 79A and 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act,1961 stands abated in terms of Section 12(2) of the Amendment Act 56 of 2020. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12