IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7044/2021 (LR)

BETWEEN :
SMT. PRABHA
W/O VENKATARAMA AYYANGAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT ILTHORE VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR ANGADI., ADVOCATE)

AND :

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

2. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTNAT
COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION
 2

DODDABALLAPURA; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER

PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED.31.8.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts

notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal.

The petitioner has impugned the order dated

31.08.2018 in LRF:SR(De):149/2013-14 by the

Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division,

Doddaballapura, [the first respondent who is hereinafter

referred to as ‘the Assistant Commissioner’] under

Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961

(for short, the 'KLR Act'). The Assistant Commissioner

by this impugned order dated 31.08.2018 has declared

that the sale deed dated 12.06.2013 executed in favour

of the petitioner for the land measuring 0-01 gunta in

Sy.No.17/4 [presently Sy No. 17/11] of Ilthore Village,

Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural

 3

District [the subject land] void for violation of the

provisions of Section 79-A & 79-B of the KLR Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner hails from an agricultural

family and she is entitled to purchase and hold

agricultural lands. The petitioner does not suffer from

any disqualification and she has accordingly purchased

the subject land under the sale deed dated 12.06.2013.

She was, at the time of purchasing the subject land,

working as a Garment factory worker and residing in

Bengaluru [as mentioned in the Lease Agreement as per

Annexure - G]. Though the Assistant Commissioner has

observed that the petitioner is served with the notice,

she is not served with the notice of the proceedings.

The impugned order dated 31.08.2018, which is without

notice to the petitioner, is in violation of the principles

of natural justice. The Assistant Commissioner, who is

mandated to hold a summary enquiry under the

 4

provisions of Section 83 of the KLR Act, is enjoined in

law to ensure that all measures are taken for issuance

of notice of enquiry so that the reasonable hearing is

extended to her, but the Assistant commissioner has

passed the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 without

such opportunity.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urges

that the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 must be

quashed on this short ground with liberty to the

petitioner to urge before the Assistant Commissioner all

grounds to show that the sale deed dated 12.06.2013 is

not executed in violation of the provisions of Section

79-A and 79-B of the KLR Act as also to contend that

the Assistant Commissioner cannot continue the

proceedings for alleged violation of these provisions in

view of the omission thereof by the Karnataka Land

Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020.

 5

4. The learned Additional Government

Advocate, relying upon a decision of coordinate bench of

this Court in W.P.No.7468/2021 which is disposed of

on 15.04.2021 [Sri.L.Arun Kumar vs. The Assistant

Commissioner], submits that this Court has in similar

circumstances restored the proceedings to the Assistant

Commissioner to reconsider but with the observation

that the petitioner in the case on hand would not be

entitled to the benefit of the amendment as no

proceedings were pending as on the date of the

amendment Act or the earlier ordinance.

5. There is no material on record to indicate

that the Assistant commissioner has taken all

measures to ensure that the petitioner had reasonable

opportunity in LRF:SR(De):149/2013-14 to show cause

against the declaration of the sale deed dated

12.06.2013 void and forfeiture of the subject land.

Therefore, and in the light of the rival submissions as

 6

aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that,

leaving all questions [including the question whether

the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit of the

Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act,

2020] open for consideration by the Assistant

Commissioner strictly in accordance the decision of this

Court, the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 in

LRF:SR(De):149/2013-14 by the Assistant

Commissioner must be quashed on the short ground of

violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed-in-part, and the

impugned order dated 31.08.2018 by the Assistant

Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division,

Doddaballapura, [the first respondent] in

LRF:SR(De):149/2013-14 is quashed.

[b] The proceedings in LRF:SR(De):149/2013-14

is restored to the board of the Assistant Commissioner,

 7

Doddaballapura Sub-Division, Doddaballapura, for

reconsideration in the light of the observations made

herein.

[c] The petitioner shall appear before the

Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division,

Doddaballapura without further notice on 19.08.2021,

and the Assistant Commissioner shall endeavour to

dispose of the proceedings within a period of six weeks

from 19.08.2021.

SD/-
JUDGE

BSR