What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the order sheet indicated no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the order of forfeiture was set aside.

The petitioner's land was forfeited under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for alleged contravention of Sections 79A and 79B. The petitioner claims he was not served with notices and no opportunity for objections or personal hearing was given.

What were the issues?

Whether the forfeiture order was passed without affording the petitioner due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Sri Anwar Nawab vs The State of Karnataka | Karnataka High Court 2022

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 12595 OF 2022 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SRI ANWAR NAWAB S/O LATE JUSTICE A.K.LAKSMESHWAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.'C'-702, SPARTAN HEIGHTS RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU.

... PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU - 560 001

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION

RAMANAGARA - 562 159

THE TAHSILDAR

KANAKAPURA TALUK

KANAKAPURA

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

2 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2016 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION RAMANAGARA IN CASE NO.LRF.79(A & B) 27/2011-12 AS PER ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

An order of forfeiture made by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the land purchased by the petitioner contravenes Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 is the subject matter of this writ petition.

It is case of the petitioner that he has never been served with the copies of the notices of the forfeiture proceedings. The petitioner has produced the order sheet as Annexure-G. The said order sheet does not indicate as to whether notices were served on the petitioner. However, on 26.07.2015 it is stated that the respondent was absent, but one Mehubab

3 Peer Sab had appeared and had filed a xerox copy of authorisation and also submitted that the original copy of the authorisation had been submitted in a different case. The order sheet also records that he had filed a RTC, an Income Certificate, Genealogical Tree and an affidavit. The Assistant Commissioner has made note in the order sheet that the income tax returns would have to be filed within 15 days and he has thereafter not fixed any further date of hearing. Nearly nine months thereafter on 23.03.2016 the impugned order is passed.

In my view, it is clear from the order sheet that no opportunity of filing the objections or personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he had not authorised anybody to appear on his behalf and he was not in the country and was working in Dubai as on that particular date.

In that view of the mater, in my view, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and remand the matter for a fresh consideration. The Assistant Commissioner shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections and also hear him and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on 14.07.2022.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

SD/-

JUDGE

pgg

SRI ANWAR NAWAB vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments