IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.56336 OF 2013 (LR-RES) BETWEEN :
1. P.B. AHMAD S/O BEERAM MOIDIN HAJEE AGED 53 YEARS 2. P.A. MOIDINE TAUSIF S/O P.B. AHMAD AGED 26 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT VEERAKAMBA VILLAGE VITLA HOBLI, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT-574 291 …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. K. BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE TAHSILDAR BANTWAL TALUK BANTWAL-574 291 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST. MANGALORE-575 001 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R2 & R3; VIDE ORDER DTD. 19.08.16 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1- HELD SUFFICIENT) . . . .
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD.18.9.2013 ANNX-A IN RESPECT OF LANDS SY.NOS.30/2P2, 30/3, 30/7, 30/9,, 30/2P3, 31/1, 31/3P2 AND 31/4 TOTALLY MEASURING 8 ACRES 65 CENTS OF BEERAKAMBA VILLAGE, VITAL HOBLI, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Shri Bhaskar K., learned advocate for the petitioners and Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned AGA for the State.
2. Shri Bhaskar, learned advocate submitted that occupancy rights in respect of 8 acres 65 cents of agricultural land in Survey Nos.30/2P2, 30/3, 30/7, 30/2P3, 31/1, 31/3P2 and 31/4 of Veerakamba Village, Bantwal Taluk were granted in favour of three persons namely, Adappa Poojary, Babu Poojary and Mundappa Poojary. Petitioners purchased the entire area of 8 acres 65 cents from the legal representatives of original grantees under three separate sale deeds, all dated 29.10.2007.
3. Petitioners’ names have been entered in the revenue records as per the record of rights produced in ‘K’ series. As a matter stood thus, Tahasildar, Bantwal Taluk, issued notice dated 18th September 2013 against original grantees calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken for obtaining occupancy rights of lands in question by misrepresentation. The legal representatives of original grantees submitted their reply as per Annexures Q1 to Q3. In the meanwhile, second petitioner submitted application to convert land bearing Survey No.31/1 measuring 2 acres 84 cents for non-agricultural purpose. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure-R1) permitted conversion of land to the extent of 48 cents and by order dated 15.7.2015(Annexure S1), he permitted conversion of land to the extent of 2 acres 36 cents in Survey No.31/1 for non-agricultural purpose.
4. Shri Bhaskar further submitted that petitioners are bonafide purchasers of lands in question which were granted to original grantees by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal on 06.01.1979. The Tahasildar has issued the impugned notice on 18th September 2013, after lapse of 33 years. He argued that under Section 122-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (‘the Act’ for short), the Tribunal can reopen the case and review his order within a period of two years from the date of grant. Therefore, impugned notice vide Annexure-A is bad in law. Accordingly, he sought for quashing the same.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on paragraph No.2 in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs.
Fatmabai Ibrahim1 to support his contention that if the authority desires to exercise power, the same ought have been done within a reasonable period of time.
6. Learned AGA argued opposing the petition.
7. Undisputed facts of the case borne out on record are, lands in question have been granted in favour of original grantees on 06.01.1979 by the Land Tribunal, Bantwal. Petitioners claim to have purchased the same from original grantees under three sale deeds noted supra. Notice as per Annexure-A has been issued on 18th September 2013. The Deputy Commissioner vide orders dated 05.01.2015 and 15.07.2015 has permitted conversion of land bearing Survey No.31/1 for non-agricultural purpose.
1 (1997)6 SCC 71 8. In view of above factual matrix, learned advocate for petitioners is right in his contention that the Land Tribunal could review the order within a period of two years as provided under Section 122-A of the Act. Therefore, impugned notice is unsustainable in law.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The notice dated 18.09.2013 issued by the Tahasildar, Bantwal, vide Annexure-A is quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.