IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.40837/2017(LR-RES) BETWEEN SRI KRISHNAMURTHY T S/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A CHIKKAHONNESARA VILLAGE HEGGODU POST SAGAR TALUK-577417 SHIMOGA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V S HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGALA SUB-DIVISION KOLLEGALA-571410 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD:15.12.2007, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FORFEITING THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER BEARING SY NO.35, MEASURING 2 ACRES 32½ GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MANGALA VILLAGE, HANGALA HOBLI, GUNDLUPETE TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 15.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings bearing No.LRF.184/2007-08 in forfeiting the land of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.35, measuring to an extent of 2 acres 32 ½ guntas, situated at Mangala village, Hangala Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, which is confirmed by the KAT in Appeal No.548/2018 by its order dated 31.3.2017.
2. According to the petitioner, he is an ex-service man from Army and that, from out of the terminal benefits he has acquired the land in question in the name of Vanashree Vanavasi Kalyana (R) Karnataka Trust, for the betterment of the society. It is stated that at the time of purchasing the land in question under registered sale deed dated 10.1.2007 by inadvertence certain mistakes were crept in, which had led to proceedings being initiated under Section 79(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In the meanwhile, the said mistake being noticed by the petitioner, it is corrected in getting a Rectification Deed registered on 20.11.2007.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the mistake which had crept in, in the sale deed being rectified, the same is not looked into by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner while passing the order impugned and he has ordered for resumption of land to the State. When the same is challenged before the KAT, the KAT has also not considered the material on record and dismissed the appeal. Hence, he has come up in the present writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the order impugned is passed basically because of the failure on the part of the petitioner in not producing the Rectification Deed before the competent authority and production of the same would not have resulted in the order impugned being passed.
5. In the light of the aforesaid submission on the part of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 15.12.007 in proceedings No.LRF.184/2007-08, which is confirmed in Appeal No.548/2008 on the file of KAT on 31.3.2017 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration of reference made to him under Section 79(a) and (b) in the light of registered document dated 10.1.2007, which is subsequently corrected by Rectification Deed dated 20.11.2007.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Assistant Commissioner shall dispose of the remanded proceedings in reference bearing No.LRF.184/2007-08 within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-