Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    (2012) 5 Kar. L.J. 349 in The High Court of Karnataka

    Uploaded by

    sunilsilent
    The petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner forfeiting his agricultural land without notice to him. The High Court set aside the impugned order on the grounds that no notice was served to the petitioner and the order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to argue that he is from an agricultural family and his income is within the limit to own agricultural land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (2012) 5 Kar. L.J. 349 in The High Court of Karnataka

    Uploaded by

    sunilsilent
    16 views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner forfeiting his agricultural land without notice to him. The High Court set aside the impugned order on the grounds that no notice was served to the petitioner and the order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to argue that he is from an agricultural family and his income is within the limit to own agricultural land.

    Original Description:

    asdfvidsfkog

    Original Title

    79A7

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner forfeiting his agricultural land without notice to him. The High Court set aside the impugned order on the grounds that no notice was served to the petitioner and the order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to argue that he is from an agricultural family and his income is within the limit to own agricultural land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    16 views2 pages

    (2012) 5 Kar. L.J. 349 in The High Court of Karnataka

    Uploaded by

    sunilsilent
    The petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner forfeiting his agricultural land without notice to him. The High Court set aside the impugned order on the grounds that no notice was served to the petitioner and the order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard. The Court remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to argue that he is from an agricultural family and his income is within the limit to own agricultural land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    [2012] 5 Kar. L.J.

    349
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    Present:

    Huluvadi G. RameshJ.

    M. Lokesh Chandra Tak

    v.
    State of Karnataka and Another

    KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961, Section 79-A(5) Agricultural land purchased by
    person alleged to be not entitled to acquire and own agricultural land Initiation of
    proceedings by authority (Sub-Divisional Commissioner) for forfeiture of Proceeding initiated
    and order passed for forfeiture and vesting of land in State, without notice to owner, held, is bad
    in law, and order, therefore, to be set aside with liberty reserved to authority to pass fresh order
    in accordance with law.

    .k

    ljl
    ib
    ra
    r

    y.

    co

    Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J., Held: A perusal of the impugned order is not indicative of service of
    notice on the petitioner. However, the said order has been passed alleged violation of Section
    79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, property has been forfeited by the order of the
    Sub-Divisional Commissioner instructing the Tahsildar to follow the procedure as per Section
    77 of the Act. It is to be seen, no such document is available for having served notice on the
    petitioner and the order has been passed ex parte. . . . . . To enable the petitioner to have due
    opportunity in view of the contention that he is from agricultural family and his income does
    not exceed more than Rs. Two lakhs as on the date of purchase or prior thereto from other
    sources than agriculture, the impugned order is set aside and also the consequential order to
    make necessary entries in the name of the Government and the entry made if any, by the
    order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner in the RTC stands quashed. . . . . . It is for the
    authority to pass appropriate orders according to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to
    the petitioner. All contentions are left open to be urged. [Paras 4, 5 and 6]
    Sri Shashidar S. Karmadi, Government Pleader for Respondents.for Respondent

    w
    w

    Writ Petition No. 13637 of 2012 (LR).

    ORDER

    The Court, made the following:


    Petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order of the Sub- Divisional Commissioner,
    Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore on 21-3-2009-Annexure-C.
    2. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and also a resident of Bangalore and his
    family owns agricultural land. The property in Sy. No. 143/1 (Old Sy. No. 143) situate at
    Kestur Village, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District measures about 1 acre and he has
    purchased the same on 14-12-2006. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment
    and his name is entered in the RTC in respect of the Schedule property. He has also produced
    Annexures-B and B1 indicating his name in Form 9 as well as in column (12) of the RTC.
    According to him, behind his back and without notice to him, impugned order is passed at
    Annexure-C on initiating proceedings under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land
    Reforms Act, 1961 read with Section 80 of the Act.

    3. Heard the Government Pleader.


    4. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-C is not indicative of service of notice on the
    petitioner. However, the said order has been passed alleged violation of Section 79-A of the
    Karnataka Land Reforms Act and, exercising power under Section 83 of the Act, property has
    been forfeited by the order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner instructing the Tahsildar to
    follow the procedure as per Section 77 of the Act. It is to be seen, no such document is
    available for having served notice on the petitioner and the order has been passed ex parte.
    Page No: 350

    co

    5. To enable the petitioner to have due opportunity in view of the contention that he is from
    agricultural family and his income does not exceed more than Rs. Two lakhs as on the date of
    purchase or prior thereto from other sources than agriculture, the impugned
    order-Annexure-C passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Doddaballapur is set aside
    and also the consequential order to make necessary entries in the name of the Government
    and the entry made if any, by the order of the Sub-Divisional Commissioner in the RTC
    stands quashed.

    ljl
    ib
    ra
    r

    y.

    6. The petitioner to appear before the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Doddaballapur on or


    before 11th June, 2012. Therefore, it is for the authority to pass appropriate orders according
    to law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. All contentions are left open to
    be urged.
    7. Petition is allowed.

    w
    w

    .k

    8. Government Pleader to file memo of appearance in four weeks.


    Page No: 351

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy