SRI MARWAN ABOOBAKER vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.9761 OF 2017 (LR)

BETWEEN

S/O A.M. ABOOBAKER,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.912, BDA LAYOUT, HAL III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 075.

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

AND

BY ITS SECRETARY,

-2-

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT NO ORDER DATED 23.05.1997 BEARING LRR CR NO.5/1997-98 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS REFLECTED IN MUTATION REF.NO.15/1997-98 APPENDED AT ANNEX-J AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

-3- ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioners purchased three items of properties measuring 22 guntas in Sy.No.111/2, 18 guntas in Sy.No.111/3 and 15 guntas in Sy.No.112/12, all situated at Taralu village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1993. Their names were entered in the revenue records. However, to the surprise of the petitioners, the names of the petitioners were removed from the land revenue records and the name of the State Government was entered on the premise that in a case bearing No. LRR CR 5/1997-98, the competent authority/the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order invoking the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for violation of the provisions in Section 79-A and 79-B of the Act and therefore, the land was forfeited to the State Government. The petitioners herein approached this Court in W.P.No.9395/2009 and this Court by order dated 01.09.2009

-4- directed the Assistant Commissioner to furnish a certified copy of the order dated 23.05.1997 bearing No.5/1997-98 and thereafter consider the representation given by the petitioners and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Nevertheless, inspite of a specific direction given by this Court and repeated representations given by this Court, no action is taken by the revenue authorities. 2. Learned Counsel Sri.Ajesh Kumar, appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to order dated 20.11.1990 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) Bengaluru, in Review Petition No.1/1990. The review petitioner therein is Sri.B.Raghunath, who is one of the vendors of the petitioners as seen in the sale deed dated 20.11.1993. It is clear from the said order that the earlier action was initiated against the said Sri.B.Raghunath by the competent authority/ Assistant Commissioner invoking the powers conferred under Section 83 of the Act, for violation of the provisions contained in Section

-5- 79A and 79B of the Act. It is also clear that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal bearing No.575/1988 vide order dated 14.03.1990. During the course of the review petition, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the purchaser i.e., Sri.B.Raghunath was an agriculturist and he had not been assessed to income tax as his income was below Rs.12,000/- from all sources other than agricultural. Accepting the submission of Sri.B.Raghunath, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order and allowed the appeal filed at the hands of the Sri.B.Raghunath and set aside the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. This aspect of the matter is not within the knowledge of the revenue authorities. If the petitioners had brought this to the notice of the revenue authorities, the impugned mutation order passed by the Tahsildar could have been set aside. Nevertheless, it is clear from the material available on record that there is no reason to remove the name of the petitioners from land revenue records and to enter the name of the State Government since, the order of the competent authority passed under the

-6- provisions of the Act, has been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 20.11.1990. The petitioners herein have purchased the property from Sri.B.Raghunath and others under registered sale deed dated 20.11.1993. Therefore, they are entitled to have their names continued in the revenue records.

-7- registered sale deed dated 20.11.1993 to continue in the land revenue records.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE