- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2022 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT. R UMARATHNAM AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS W/O A RATHNAM R/AT NO.2/2A, 4TH CROSS FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE 05. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT PIN CODE -571440. 2. THE TAHASILDAR GUNDLUPETE TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT PINCODE-571111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 12/04/2022 PASSED IN W P NO.7045/2022 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT AND B) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.LRF 146/2008-09. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The Appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge is in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, being aggrieved by the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.7045/2022 whereby the learned single judge rejected the challenge to the order of the Assistant Commissioner bearing No.L.R.F.146/2008-09 dated 02.08.2011 declaring the purchase made by the petitioner as null and void in the proceedings initiated under sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Raghavendra.K., for the appellant/petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Saritha Kulkarni for the respondents. Perused the entire writ appeal papers and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 the original records relating to the impugned order at Annexure-F made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate during the course of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the petitioner purchased the land in question i.e., land in Sy.No.138/1 situated at Kebbepura Village, Hangala Hobli, Gundlapete Taluk, Chamarajanagara District, under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2008 and proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the1961 Act which culminated in passing impugned order dated 02.08.2011 (Annexure-F). Questioning the said order passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, appellant/petitioner was before the learned Single Judge. The Learned Single Judge, under the impugned order observed that the writ petition was filed after the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 deleting Sections 79A and 79B and held that the writ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 petition was liable to be dismissed due to a delay of 11 years in approaching the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner Sri.Raghavendra.K., would submit that the appellant/petitioner was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner under Sections 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act. He submits that no notice was served on the appellant/petitioner in the proceedings initiated by the second respondent, and the impugned order passed by the second respondent came to the knowledge of the appellant/petitioner only when he filed an application to obtain the record of rights with respect to the land in question in the year 2022. As the impugned order was passed without service of notice to the appellant/petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the entire proceedings stood vitiated and further submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.Saritha Kulkarni would support the order passed by the learned Single Judge and further submits that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent- Assistant Commissioner was within the knowledge of the appellant/petitioner and that she deliberately remained absent before the second respondent. Further, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that she approached this Court after a delay of 11 years, and that too, only after the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of 1961 Act were deleted by amendment to the 1961 Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate points out from the records that the notices sent to the appellant/petitioner were returned with postal shara indicating that the appellant/petitioner was not residing at the said address and further learned Additional Government Advocate also invites attention of this Court to the mahazar drawn for service of notice on the appellant/petitioner, which indicates that the notice has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 been affixed to the land. Further, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the appellant/petitioner deliberately remained absent before the second respondent, as he had no documents to overcome the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the appeal, confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers along with the original records relating to Annexure-F dated 02.08.2011, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 02.08.2011 passed by the second respondent under Sections 79A and 79B of 1961 Act is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned order passed by the second respondent requires to be set aside for the following reasons: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 The appellant/petitioner purchased the land in Sy.No.138/1 situated at Kebbepura Village, Hangala Hobli, Gundlapete Taluk, Chamarajanagara District under a registered sale deed dated 22.01.2008. Admittedly, the second respondent initiated the proceedings under Section 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act by issuing notice to the appellant/petitioner. 7. It is the specific contention of learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the notices issued by the second respondent were not served on the appellant/petitioner and that the proceedings conducted by the second respondent under Sections 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act, and the order passed thereof, is in total violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. To appreciate the said contention, we directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to produce the original records relating to the impugned order. Learned Additional Government Advocate today has made - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 available the original records. A perusal of the original records relating to the impugned order dated 02.08.2011 passed under Sections 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act, declaring the sale deed in respect of the land in question as null and void, shows that the notices issued to the appellant/petitioner returned with postal shara “Insufficient address” or “Not known”. Regarding the notice dated 08.06.2010, the Revenue Inspector has drawn a mahazar for service of notice by affixing notice on the land in question. In the Mahazar, it is recorded that the purchaser i.e., appellant/petitioner is not available on the land, hence the notice was affixed to the land in question. 9. If the appellant/petitioner was not available at the address to which the notice is addressed and if the said notice has been returned with postal shara “Insufficient address” or “Not known”, there is no valid service of notice. The mahazar affixing notice on the land also cannot be considered as service of notice of the proceedings on the appellant/petitioner. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 10. No adverse order could be passed against a person without hearing the said person. The impugned order forfeiting the land by treating the sale deed of the appellant/petitioner as null and void under the impugned order dated 02.08.2011 under Sections 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act is in total violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant/petitioner had no opportunity to put- forth his case before the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Right to immovable property cannot be taken away without a hearing. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be set aside. 11. In terms of the Sections 79A and 79B of the 1961 Act also, before amendment, unless the second respondent records service of notice and calls upon the party to show cause within 15 days from the date of service of notice, no further proceedings could take place. 12. The State Government by amendment dated 30.12.2020 brought an amendment to the 1961 Act. In - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25314-DB WA No. 658 of 2022 terms of the amendment act, the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of 1961 Act stood deleted. The amendment act would state that 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, pertaining to Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the 1961 Act and consequential proceedings thereof shall stand abated. 13. In view of the above, proceedings initiated against the appellant/petitioner stands abated. Accordingly, writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20