Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 415 (KAR)

Jacob Thomas v. Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore

2010-03-30

H.G.RAMESH

body2010
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has sought for to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 22-2-2005 at Annexure-E and to pass appropriate orders. 2. The petitioner’s father is said to have purchased a land in Sy. No. 82/1 of Byrathi Village, Bidarhalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 1 acre 34 guntas by a registered sale deed dated 7-3-2003 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore. 3. According to the petitioner, without notice to the father of the petitioner, the proceedings was initiated by the 1st respondent under Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and the impugned order came to be passed at Annexure-E. In the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner has held that the Land has been purchased by the father of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Section 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and ordered to confiscate the property by declaring the sale deed as void. 4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no notice was served. Apart from that, no opportunity was given to the petitioner or his father, who was owning 64 cents of land at Gudalur Taluk of Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu, and certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, Gudalur, in this regard. Accordingly, it is contended that no notice was served and no enquiry was held before passing the impugned order. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that notice was issued on the person, who was squatting on the land and there was due notice and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed. 6. On perusal of Annexure-B produced by the petitioner, it shows that the father of the petitioner was an agriculturist owning agricultural land and he has purchased the land at Bangalore. He being an agriculturist, purchasing of the land would not be in violation of the provisions noted above. 7. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22-2-2005 passed by the 1st respondent at Annexure-E is quashed, however, with a liberty to respondent 1-authority to hold an enquiry and pass appropriate orders, if need be.