AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—Respondent No. 3 herein purchased Sy. Nos. 100/5 and 100/6B situated at Nagarooru Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from one Smt. Hanumakka pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 01.03.1993. The petitioners purchased the said lands from respondent No. 3 herein pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2001. The Tahsildar sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner alleging violation of Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act by the respondent No. 3. Notice was issued to respondent No. 3. During this interregnum, when the matter was pending adjudication before the Competent Authority, respondent No. 3 has sold the lands in favour of the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that after the proceedings were initiated, notice was issued to the 3rd respondent. The last date of hearing was on 19.09.1997. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 31.10.1997. For a period of almost close to five years, the proceedings did not see the light of the day and all of a sudden, the proceedings commenced on 20th March 2002 and thereafter, matter is being adjourned from time to time It appears the notice of the proceedings was issued to respondent No. 3 but however, he was not served and the notice was affixed on the land in question. Thus, the competent authority proceeded to adjudicate that there is a clear violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Thus, forfeited the lands to the Government. Thus, petitioner who had an interest in the property filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal holding that there is a clear violation of the provisions of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition.
I have heard Mr. Srivatsa learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr. T. Krishna for the petitioner. Mr. Kalyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP for respondents 1 and 2.
The records are made available. The record-clearly discloses that after The proceedings stood adjcurned to 31.10.1997, the proceedings have commenced only on 20.03.2002. I am of the view that the notice of the proceedings was not issued to the concerned or interested persons inasmuch as the 3rd respondent had sold the property in favour of the petitioner. It is also to be noticed that the address given in the notice is "Shivanna, No. 645. 12th Cross, ''B'' Main Road, K.H.B. Colony II Phase, Yelahanka New Town. Bangalore - 560 064." The address given in the present writ petition is also same. Hence, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent was not available to be served. Indeed there is also nothing to show that any effort was made by the Competent Authority to have the notices served except for the Mahazar to show that the notice is affixed on the land in question. I am of the view that this not proper service of notice.
Be that as it may the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the competent authority moreso, having regard to the fact that the title now vests with the petitioner. Insofar as the order passed by the Tribunal is concerned, I am of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the long gap between the last date of hearing and the commencement of the proceedings all over again. That has not been considered. Hence, the following order is passed:
(a) Petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as the Appellate Tribunal stand quashed.
(c) The matter stands remitted to respondent No. 1 for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
(d) Since all the parties are before this Court, they shall take these proceedings as notice to them and shall appear before the Competent Authority on 16th December 2011 without any notice from the 1st respondent - Competent Authority.
(e) Both The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 are permitted to participate in the proceedings.
(f) Learned Government Pleader, to send back the records forthwith.
Rule is issued and made absolute to the extent indicated above
Mr. Shashidhar S. Karamadi, learned HCGP appearing for respondents is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.