Page 1 of 2

2013 Karnataka Judgment Finder 1364

Single Bench

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BANGALORE)

[Hon'ble Justice H. Billappa, J.]

R.D. Ramaswamy Appellant

Vs.
Assistant Commissioner, The Tahsildar and
State of Karnataka Respondent
Writ Petition No. 9715 of 2013 Decided on : 30-08-2013
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Sections 79-A,
79-B Initiation of proceedings 1st respondent has
initiated proceedings under Section 79-A and 79-B of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner has appeared
on 27.01.2010 and 23.04.2010. On 23.04.2010, the
matter has been reserved for orders. Thereafter, 1st
respondent has passed the order dated 3.7.2010 holding
that alienation in favour of the petitioner is in violation of
Sections 79-A and 79-B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act
The petitioner has appeared before the 1st respondent on
27.01.2010 and 23.4.2010 and produced RTC extracts.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent has passed the order
dated 3.7.2010 holding that the alienation in favour of
the petitioner is in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act Petition allowed.
Counsel for Appearing Parties :
P.K. Shrikava, for the Appellant
T.P. Srinivasa, AGA, for the Respondent

ORDER

H. BillappaIn this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for a writ of
mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the
application filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-A in LRF (79)
74/2009-10. The petitioner claims that he has purchased
agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 71/1, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 71/5, 73/1,
73/2, 69/1, 69/3, 69/4, 70/1 and 70/2 of Honnavara village, in all
measuring about 18 acres 35 guntas. Based on the
communication dated 19.11.2009 sent by the 2nd respondent,
the 1st respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 79-A
and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner has
appeared on 27.01.2010 and 23.04.2010. On 23.04.2010, the
matter has been reserved for orders. Thereafter, 1st respondent

file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Karnataka%20High%20Court%20Judgment%20Fin...

1/30/2015

Page 2 of 2

has passed the order dated 3.7.2010 holding that alienation in

favour of the petitioner is in violation of Sections 79-A and 79-B
of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Tahasildar is directed to
mutate the name of the Government in respect of the lands
purchased by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed
an application dated 10.12.2010 under Section 25 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the said application has not been considered by
the 1st respondent. Therefore, this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
1st respondent ought to have considered the application of the
petitioner and passed appropriate orders in accordance with law.
But, the first respondent has failed to consider the application.
Therefore, the 1st respondent may be directed to consider the
application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
3. As against this, the learned AGA submitted that the order
passed by the 1st respondent is not an ex parte order. The
petitioner has participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the
application is misconceived and the first respondent cannot be
directed to consider the application of the petitioner.
4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA. The
petitioner has purchased certain lands in Sy. Nos. 71/1, 71/2,
71/3, 71/4, 71/5, 73/1, 73/2, 69/1, 69/3, 69/4,. 70/1 and 70/2
of Honnavara village measuring in all about 18 acres 35 guntas.
Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under
Section 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The
petitioner has appeared before the 1st respondent on 27.01.2010
and 23.4.2010 and produced RTC extracts. Thereafter, the 1st
respondent has passed the order dated 3.7.2010 holding that the
alienation in favour of the petitioner is in violation of Sections 79A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Thereafter, the
petitioner has filed application under Section 25 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act to set aside the ex parte order or review the,
order. The 1st respondent being the statutory Authority ought to
have considered the application and passed appropriate orders.
But, the first respondent has not considered the application so
far. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the 1st respondent to
consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the 1st
respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner
vide Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with
law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.

file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/Karnataka%20High%20Court%20Judgment%20Fin...

1/30/2015