- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16046 WP No. 100496 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 100496 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI. MANJU @ MANJUNATH S/O RAMANNA AALALLI @ MULIMANI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE, R/O. BAILAVALA (M), AREGOPPA, BAILWAL, TQ. HANAGAL AND DIST. HAVERI-581 203. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-58118. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HANAGAL TALUKA, DIST. HAVERI-581 104. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING PÀæ¸ÀA:PÉ E® Dgï:J¦J¸ïDgï/81J/ªÀ»-5/2013-2014 DATED 10- 03-2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AS NULL AND VOID. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.25 11:59:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16046 WP No. 100496 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 10.03.2024 passed by second respondent/Assistant Commissioner. 2. In terms of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner has held that the sale transaction dated 23.07.2010 in favour of the petitioner is hit by Section 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘Act of 1961’, for short). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 79A and Section 79B of the Act of 1961 have been omitted by way of substitution and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that since the provisions are omitted by way of substitution, it is to be deemed as if the said provisions were not in place in the Act from the date of enactment itself. Thus, he would contend that the impugned order confiscating the property for alleged violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961 is illegal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16046 WP No. 100496 of 2025 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that when the transaction took place, the provisions were very much in place and they were amended only in the year 2020 as such, the Assistant Commissioner is justified in passing the impugned order. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. The effect of omission of Section 79A and 79B of the Act of 1961 is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Court has held that since the provisions are omitted by way of substitution, it is to be deemed that the said provisions were not in the statute from 1961 itself subject to the rider that no third party right is created after confiscation and challenge to the order confiscating the property. 7. It is not the case of the respondents/State that after the property was confiscated, same has been distributed to a third party creating third party right. 8. That being the position, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16046 WP No. 100496 of 2025 9. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 10.03.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. iii. The Tahsildar shall restore the name of the petitioner in the property records within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63