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.36187/2014(LR) BETWEEN M/S SRI SHANKAR INDUSTRIES NO.254,OLD THARAGUPET, BANGALORE-53 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT A.C. LALITHAMMA, W/O LATE A.N. CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS NO.254, OLD THARAGAPET, BANGALORE-53 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M N SATHYA RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ANNEXURE-E & ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE ANNEXURE-E, DT.8.6.1998, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner herein is a registered partnership firm represented by its partner Smt.A.C.Lalithamma. Admittedly, the said firm purchased an extent of 50 feet x 120 feet of converted land under a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1997 registered as document No.5205/97-98 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is seen that the sale deed executed in their favour is with reference to land which is converted from agriculture to non agricultural industrial purpose. Thereafter, the petitioner got the said land registered in its name in the Record of Rights, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and has been paying tax regularly.
2. When matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner on the basis of a report filed by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar dated 12.5.1997 is said to have initiated proceedings in No.LRF(83) 127/96-97, wherein it is stated he has received information regarding certain sale transactions with reference to land bearing Sy.No.44 of Chikka Thoguru Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk totally measuring 9 acres 35 guntas in violation of the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, accordingly, passed the order dated 8.6.1998 in forfeiting the land in question to the Government. Against the said order, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the order impugned. The same would indicate that the impugned order is bereft of merits as there is no reference to the facts regarding sale transactions being taken place in the aforesaid survey number on any particular date, the date of transactions is vague, extent of the land covered under the transactions is also vague, the report of the Tahsildar also does not indicate who is the vendor and which of the respondents are purchasers and under which registered document of sale, is not reflected in the order. With such vague particulars, the proceeding is conducted and an order is passed under Section 79(a) and 79(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, holding that illegal transactions have taken place with reference to land bearing Sy.No.44 of Chikka Toguru village. When the entire proceedings before the respondent authorities are looked into, it reeks of incompetence of the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner and equally incompetent conduct on the part of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in recommending reference under Section 79(a) and 79(b) of the Act.
4. Admittedly, the sale transaction pertaining to the purchase of plot/land in question by the petitioner herein has taken place on 6.10.1997 vide registered document bearing No.5205/97-98 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Bengaluru South Taluk, where the schedule property conveyed is a plot measuring 50 feet x 120 feet which bears katha number of village Panchayat as 124/44/12 and in the said sale deed it is also referred to as industrially converted land. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced conversion order bearing No.B.DIS.ALN.SR.6525, dated 20.1.1973, where under the land bearing Sy.No.44 of Chikkltoguru village is converted from agriculture to non residential industrial purpose. When the material on record is looked into, it clearly discloses that the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar without looking into the same has prepared a report with reference to alleged violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act regarding the land in question, the 2nd respondent also without ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the same has proceeded to accept the said report of the Tahsildar and passed the impugned order in confiscating the entire extent of land in Sy.No.44 to the Government, which is required to be quashed in this writ petition.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.6.1998 in proceedings No.LRF (83) 127/96-97 on the file of 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner is hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-