Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    R.D. Ramaswamy - Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner, The Tahsildar and State of Karnataka - Respondent

    Uploaded by

    sunilsilent
    The petitioner purchased agricultural lands totaling 18 acres and 35 guntas. The first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and submitted documents. The first respondent then passed an order finding the land transfer to the petitioner violated the act. The petitioner filed an application to review this order, which the first respondent had not considered. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass an order on it within six months in accordance with law.

    Copyright:

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

    R.D. Ramaswamy - Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner, The Tahsildar and State of Karnataka - Respondent

    Uploaded by

    sunilsilent
    39 views2 pages
    The petitioner purchased agricultural lands totaling 18 acres and 35 guntas. The first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and submitted documents. The first respondent then passed an order finding the land transfer to the petitioner violated the act. The petitioner filed an application to review this order, which the first respondent had not considered. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass an order on it within six months in accordance with law.

    Original Description:

    1234

    Original Title

    79 aaa

    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 purchased agricultural lands totaling 18 acres and 35 guntas. The first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and submitted documents. The first respondent then passed an order finding the land transfer to the petitioner violated the act. The petitioner filed an application to review this order, which the first respondent had not considered. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass an order on it within six months in accordance with law.

    Copyright:

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

    R.D. Ramaswamy - Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner, The Tahsildar and State of Karnataka - Respondent

    Uploaded by

    sunilsilent
    The petitioner purchased agricultural lands totaling 18 acres and 35 guntas. The first respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner appeared before the first respondent and submitted documents. The first respondent then passed an order finding the land transfer to the petitioner violated the act. The petitioner filed an application to review this order, which the first respondent had not considered. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and pass an order on it within six months in accordance with law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Page 1 of 2

    2013 Karnataka Judgment Finder 1364


    Single Bench

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE)


    [Hon'ble Justice H. Billappa, J.]

    R.D. Ramaswamy Appellant


    Vs.
    Assistant Commissioner, The Tahsildar and
    State of Karnataka Respondent
    Writ Petition No. 9715 of 2013 Decided on : 30-08-2013
    Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Sections 79-A,
    79-B Initiation of proceedings 1st respondent has
    initiated proceedings under Section 79-A and 79-B of the
    Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner has appeared
    on 27.01.2010 and 23.04.2010. On 23.04.2010, the
    matter has been reserved for orders. Thereafter, 1st
    respondent has passed the order dated 3.7.2010 holding
    that alienation in favour of the petitioner is in violation of
    Sections 79-A and 79-B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act
    The petitioner has appeared before the 1st respondent on
    27.01.2010 and 23.4.2010 and produced RTC extracts.
    Thereafter, the 1st respondent has passed the order
    dated 3.7.2010 holding that the alienation in favour of
    the petitioner is in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of
    the Karnataka Land Reforms Act Petition allowed.
    Counsel for Appearing Parties :
    P.K. Shrikava, for the Appellant
    T.P. Srinivasa, AGA, for the Respondent

    ORDER

    H. BillappaIn this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of


    the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a writ of
    mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the
    application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-A in LRF (79)
    74/2009-10. The petitioner claims that he has purchased
    agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 71/1, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 71/5, 73/1,
    73/2, 69/1, 69/3, 69/4, 70/1 and 70/2 of Honnavara village, in all
    measuring about 18 acres 35 guntas. Based on the
    communication dated 19.11.2009 sent by the 2nd respondent,
    the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 79-A
    and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner has
    appeared on 27.01.2010 and 23.04.2010. On 23.04.2010, the
    matter has been reserved for orders. Thereafter, 1st respondent

    file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Karnataka%20High%20Court%20Judgment%20Fin...

    1/30/2015

    Page 2 of 2

    has passed the order dated 3.7.2010 holding that alienation in


    favour of the petitioner is in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B
    of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Tahasildar is directed to
    mutate the name of the Government in respect of the lands
    purchased by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
    an application dated 10.12.2010 under Section 25 of the
    Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The grievance of the
    petitioner is that the said application has not been considered by
    the 1st respondent. Therefore, this writ petition.
    2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
    1st respondent ought to have considered the application of the
    petitioner and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law.
    But, the first respondent has failed to consider the application.
    Therefore, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the
    application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
    3. As against this, the learned AGA submitted that the order
    passed by the 1st respondent is not an ex parte order. The
    petitioner has participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the
    application is misconceived and the first respondent cannot be
    directed to consider the application of the petitioner.
    4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the
    learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. The
    petitioner has purchased certain lands in Sy. Nos. 71/1, 71/2,
    71/3, 71/4, 71/5, 73/1, 73/2, 69/1, 69/3, 69/4,. 70/1 and 70/2
    of Honnavara village measuring in all about 18 acres 35 guntas.
    Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under
    Section 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The
    petitioner has appeared before the 1st respondent on 27.01.2010
    and 23.4.2010 and produced RTC extracts. Thereafter, the 1st
    respondent has passed the order dated 3.7.2010 holding that the
    alienation in favour of the petitioner is in violation of Sections 79A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Thereafter, the
    petitioner has filed application under Section 25 of the Karnataka
    Land Revenue Act to set aside the ex parte order or review the,
    order. The 1st respondent being the statutory Authority ought to
    have considered the application and passed appropriate orders.
    But, the first respondent has not considered the application so
    far. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the 1st respondent to
    consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate
    orders in accordance with law.
    Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st
    respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner
    vide Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
    law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
    order.

    file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Karnataka%20High%20Court%20Judgment%20Fin...

    1/30/2015

    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