Ravindra Kumar Gupta vs The State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar

Though matter is listed in Preliminary Hearing ''B'' group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. Heard Sri K.M. Ghate, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Perused the writ papers.

Petitioner claims to have purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 281/A measuring 8 acres situated at Chitguppa, Humnabad Taluk, Bidar District from M/s. Kanahiya Khandsari Sugar Mill. It is contended that petitioner has paid necessary charges of assessment u/s 83 (4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. On account of usage of land for non-agricultural purposes and non-payment of conversion fine thereof, a notice came to be issued on 23.06.1995 by the second respondent and sale notice came to be issued on 13.10.1995 Annexure-J by the third respondent. Being aggrieved by this action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No. 2151/1996. This Court by order dated 18.02.1999 held that Deputy Commissioner has not considered the payment of amount made by the petitioner as per Annexure-A before issuing a direction to Tahasildar to initiate recovery proceedings. In that view of the matter, writ petition came to be allowed, direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.06.1995 Annexure-H and the warrant Annexure-J issued by the 3rd respondent therein came to be quashed reserving liberty to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner.

Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, second respondent issued show cause notice on 03.07.1999 to the petitioner and even before conclusion of proceedings 3rd respondent is said to have issued sale notice dated 05.02.2010 Annexure-D. Admittedly, records do not disclose that show cause notice issued by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court has been replied or not by the petitioner. However, to the sale notice issued by 3rd respondent petitioner has submitted his reply on 11.02.2010 at Annexure-D1. Thereafter, 3rd respondent is said to have issued one more notice on 24.03.2010 under Rule 112 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 demanding payment and notifying the petitioner that failure to pay the said amount, defaulter''s property would be brought to sale. Said notice dated 24.03.2010 has been duly replied by the petitioner on 03.04.2010 as per Annexure-E. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 18.02.1999 in W.P.No. 2151/1996 second respondent ought to have adjudicated the matter afresh. However, he has not chosen to do so. In fact to the repeated and pointed question by the Court to the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State as to whether there was any adjudication pursuant to notice dated 03.07.1999, he has submitted that no order has been passed. In this factual background, it would be necessary to issue a direction to second respondent to adjudicate the show cause notice issued on 03.07.1999 Annexure-C within 30 days from today by taking into consideration the replies if any having been filed by the petitioner and dispose of the said show cause notice within 30 days if not already disposed of. It would be necessary to observe that 3rd respondent - Tahasildar would await the adjudication of the said show cause notice if not already adjudicated before proceeding to recover the amount as per notice dated 01.06.2010 Annexure-F and based on the said order, he would be at liberty to proceed to recover the amount if any found to be due from the petitioner in accordance with law. However, in the event of second respondent has adjudicated the show cause notice dated 03.07.1999 he shall furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner forthwith to enable the petitioner to take further steps in the matter.

With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of.