IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.14243/2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. NAYARA PARVEEN W/O LATE SYED KALIM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT ACCHALU VILLAGE, ACCHALU POST, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117.
2. THE DEPUTY THASILDAR SATHNOOR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK,KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117.
3. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT SATHNOOR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 117.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2017 IN CASE NO. R.A.229/2016-17 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND CONFIRMS THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2016 IN PADA/C.R./118/2012-13, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, AS PER ANNEXURE-F & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Upon forfeiture of her land bearing Sy.No.85/1 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas situated at Achallu village, Sathanoor Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules as it was not cultivated, petitioner approached the Tahasildar for restoration. By order dated 16.03.2016, the Tahasildar directed payment of revenue of Rs.23,117/- and directed restoration of petitioner’s name in the RTC. Petitioner remitted the said amount on 07.04.2016. However, no action was taken by the revenue authorities to restore petitioner’s name in the revenue records. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara Sub-Division by filing an appeal. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and directed forfeiture of land.
2. Learned advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner had approached the Assistant Commissioner seeking a direction to implement the order passed by the Tahsildar on 16.03.2016. Instead of considering the petitioner’s request, the Assistant Commissioner has set aside the order and the same is unsustainable in law.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate argued opposing the petition.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that Tahasildar has directed restoration of land subject to payment of land revenue and the penalty and the same has been received by the Government. There was no challenge to the said order. In the circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner could not have set aside the Tahasildar’s order at the instance of petitioner herself. Hence, the same is unsustainable in law. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Annexure-H dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed. The Tahasidlar is directed to restore petitioner’s name in the revenue record within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS