1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL

W.P.Nos.19997-19998/2013 C/W. W.P.No.42727/2013 (SC-ST)

IN W.P.Nos.19997-19998/2013

BETWEEN

1. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE ONARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOIBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 032.

2. SRI SHIVAPAL, S/O M. KALASAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.232, 5TH MAIN, C.B.I. ROAD, GANGANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 032. ... PETITIONERS

(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DT.7.5.2013)

(By Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri MANIKAPPA PATIL & Sri CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVS.FOR P2, Sri PRAKASH, ADV. FOR P1) AND

1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION, V.V.TOWERS, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

2

2. SRI.V.RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.V.VARADARAJU, R/AT NO.155/A, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.

3. SRI.JADHVA.G.NAGARAVALA

MAJOR, KADIGOANALI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.

4. SRI KISHORE NARGAWAL,

R/OF 159/27, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE CITY. ... RESPONDENTS (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DT.29.8.2013)

(By Sri.S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2, Dr.E.R.DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1)

IN W.P.No.42727/2013

BETWEEN

SRI SHIVAPAL, S/O M. KALASAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.232, 5TH MAIN, C.B.I. ROAD, GANGANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 032. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri PRAVEEN RAIKOTE, ADV.) AND

1. SRI.V.RAMAPRASAD,

S/O LATE SRI.V.VARADARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.155/A, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,

3

SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.

2. SRI KISHORE NAGARWAL,

S/O LATE JADHAV NAGARWAL R/OF 159/27, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE CITY.

3. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOIBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 032.

4. SRI.JADHVAJI NAGARAWALA S/O KUWAJI NAGARAWALA MAJOR, No.159/24, III MAIN, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE – 560 003.

5. PRAKASH BABU

FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR, NO.544, CMH ROAD I PHASE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 08.

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE 09.

7. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560001. … RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2, Dr.E.R.DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1)

WRIT PETITION NOS.19997-98/2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.26.4.2013 ON I.A.NO.X IN APPEAL NO.980/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE

4

TRIBUNAL (REV) BANGALORE AS AT ANNX-M AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WRIT PETITION NO.42727/2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.06.08.2013 IN APPEAL NO.K.SC/ST(A) 40/11-12 AND K.SC/ST(A)13/11-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON

12.08.2015, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

1. These writ petitions arise between the same parties.

The land involved in these writ petitions is the same. Writ

Petition No.42727/2013 arises out of an order passed by

the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru,

under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978

(for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) whereas, Writ Petition

Nos.19997-98/2013 arises out of the proceedings initiated

under Section 79-A and Section 80 of the Land Reforms

Act, culminating in the order passed by the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘KAT’).

2. W.P.No.42727/2013 is filed by one Mr.Shivapal

challenging the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the

5

Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru,

thereby allowing the separate appeals filed by Sri

V.Ramaprasad and Sri Kishore Nagarwal under Section 5A

of the PTCL Act thereby setting aside the order dated

11.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru

North Sub-Division, Bengaluru.

3. The Assistant Commissioner had ordered for

resumption and restoration of 2 acres of land comprised in

Sy.No.30 situated in Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli,

Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk on the ground that the

land was a granted land and was sold without prior

permission on 20.07.1976 in favour of one Sri Jadhavji

Nagarwal and therefore, there was violation of provisions of

the PTCL Act. The said order was passed on an

application filed by one Smt.Gowramma against Sri

Prakash Babu as respondent.

4. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner,

SC.ST.(A) No.13/2011-12 was filed by Sri V.Ramaprasad

alleging that the land in Sy.No.30 was an Inam land

6

granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa

vide order dated 10.05.1958; after his death, his sons

Narayanappa, Gurappa and Papanna sold the land

measuring 1,01,917 sq. ft. out of the total extent of 3 acres

10 guntas in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal vide Sale Deed

dated 20.07.1976 who in turn sold the land in his favour

(Sri V.Ramaprasad) vide Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978. He

urged that the land was not a granted land.

5. He also urged that order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner had been challenged by another purchaser

by name Ramu and the Deputy Commissioner found that

provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable and hence,

set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on

18.10.2006. The said order was challenged in

W.P.No.9888/2007 by the legal representatives of the

grantee and persons claiming under them. This Court by

order dated 09.06.2008 held that the Deputy

Commissioner was not right in deciding the matter as the

appellant before the Deputy Commissioner had sought to

withdraw the appeal and hence, the writ petition was

7

allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set

aside.

6. Sri V.Ramaprasad sought review of the said order

dated 09.06.2008 passed in W.P.No.9888/2007 by filing

R.P.No.93/2010. The said review petition was disposed of

on 10.03.2010 holding that the order of the Assistant

Commissioner was not binding on the appellant as he was

not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant

Commissioner. Liberty was reserved to him to challenge

the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

7. Sri V.Ramaprasad contended before the Deputy

Commissioner that he was in two minds whether to

challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner or not;

however, after securing opinion, as he was advised to seek

a formal declaration that the order of the Assistant

Commissioner was a nullity, he filed SC.ST.(A)13/2011-12

before the Deputy Commissioner. Sri V.Ramaprasad

urged that the alleged sale in favour of Shivpal, writ

8

petitioner, by the legal representative of original grantee on

16.11.2006, was a nullity in the eye of law.

8. Similarly, Kishore Nagarwal filed SC.ST.(A) 40/2011-

12 challenging the very same order of the Assistant

Commissioner urging similar grounds.

9. After hearing both parties, the Deputy Commissioner

has passed an order holding that as the land was an Inam

land in respect whereof occupancy right was conferred in

favour of Kitchana Bovi @ Narayana Bovi and was

registered as an occupant and khatedar, it could not be

construed as a granted land under Section 3(1)(b) of the

PTCL Act, as provisions of the PTCL Act were not

applicable. The Deputy Commissioner has further found

that the land was alienated for the first time vide Sale

Deed dated 20.07.1976 in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal

after 15 years from the date of grant made on 15.09.1958.

The Deputy Commissioner found that under the Mysore

(Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 there

was no non-alienation condition in respect of the lands for

9

which occupancy right had been confirmed. However,

under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, once occupancy

right was confirmed in favour of a tenant, such land shall

not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of

grant. The Deputy Commissioner has placed reliance on

the decision of this Court in the case of M.MUNIKENCHAPPA

Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT,

BANGALORE & OTHERS – 2004(3) KAR.L.J. 579 to hold that

provisions of PTCL Act were inapplicable to cases where

occupancy right had been granted in recognition of

preexisting right and such lands could not be treated as

granted lands in terms of the provisions contained under

Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner

found that first alienation of the land made in favour of

Jadhavji Nagarwal under Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976

could not be held null and void.

10. It is relevant to notice here that in the meanwhile in

respect of the very land, there was a dispute with regard to

violation of provisions of Section 79-A and 80 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The said proceedings

10

were initiated against Jadhavji Nagarwal alleging that he

had purchased the land in question in violation of Section

79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Assistant

Commissioner had passed an order dated 24.05.1996

holding that there was such violation and ordered for

forfeiture of the land to the Government. This order was

challenged before KAT in Appeal No.980/2009 by Sri

Ramaprasad. The said appeal was allowed on 26.04.2013

by the KAT by condoning the delay and setting aside the

order dated 24.05.1996 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner.

11. Aggrieved by the said order, the connected

W.P.Nos.19997-19998/2013 has been filed by Gowramma,

legal representative of the grantee. Sri Shivpal has

subsequently filed an application and has come on record

as petitioner No.2 to prosecute the said writ petition.

Therefore, both these writ petitions have been heard

together as they pertain to the same subject matter and

arise between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed

of by this common order.

11

12. I have heard Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ

petitions and Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent – Sri

V.Ramaprasad in both the cases.

13. In W.P.No.42727/2013, the following contentions are

urged by Sri Nanjunda Reddy:

1) As on the date of filing the appeal before the

Deputy Commissioner, neither V.Ramaprasad, nor

Kishore Nagarwal had any locus standi to prefer

an appeal, as by that time, the land had been

ordered to be forfeited to the Government for

violation of provisions contained in Section 79-A of

the Karnataka Land Reforms Act;

2) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner

referring to the judgment of the Full Bench in the

case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT &

OTHERS - ILR 2002 KAR 4693 [2003 (1) K.L.J. 337] is

12

illegal because Mohammed Jaffar’s case dealt with

Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,

whereas in the instant case, after the lands were

forfeited to the Government, the land was granted

in favour of Gowramma; though Gowramma had

made an application allegedly under the

provisions of the PTCL Act, it has to be considered

that the land was granted by the Government to

Gowramma under the provisions of the Land

Grant Rules and not by way of restoration of the

granted land under the provisions of the PTCL

Act. In support of this contention, Sri Nanjunda

Reddy points out that if it was a case of

restoration, then the entire extent of 3 acres which

was granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi should

have been restored and not just 2 acres of land.

14. Insofar as challenge made to the order passed by the

KAT in W.P.Nos.19997-98/2013, Sri Nanjunda Reddy has

contended as follows:

13

1) Sri V.Ramaprasad has played fraud on the KAT

by producing fabricated documents. In this

regard, it is urged that Kishore Nagarwal had

himself filed an appeal against the order of the

Assistant Commissioner. The same was

dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, sale

made in favour of V.Ramaprasad was void,

inasmuch as Jadhavji Nagarwal had no

saleable interest in the property;

2) Sri V.Ramaprasad could not have preferred an

appeal independently before the KAT in view of

dismissal of appeal filed by Kishore Nagarwal;

3) that in the appeal filed by Kishore Nagarwal,

Jadhavji Nagarwal was shown to have died

during the year 2005, but in the appeal filed by

Sri V.Ramaprasad in 2009, Sri Jadhavji

Nagarwal was made a party and indeed, one

counsel appeared and filed vakalath for

Jadhavji Nagarwal. Therefore, a dead person

14

has been represented before the KAT. Thus, by

impleading a dead person and without arraying

the writ petitioners as parties before the KAT,

an order was obtained by Sri Ramaprasad;

4) that the KAT grossly erred in not going into the

merits of the matter, but allowing the appeal

solely on the ground that there was inordinate

delay on the part of the Assistant

Commissioner in initiating the proceedings

under Section 79-A & 79-B of the Karnataka

Land Reforms Act. He points that at best the

KAT ought to have remanded the matter back

to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh

consideration;

5) that the KAT failed to appreciate that the

appeal filed by Sri V.Ramaprasad was itself

highly belated and deserved to be dismissed

solely on that ground, particularly when the

entries in the revenue records were effected

15

pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner on 24.05.1996, followed by

disposal of the land by way of grant in favour of

Gowramma during the year 2005;

6) that the order passed by the KAT rejecting the

two applications filed by the petitioners to come

on record was erroneous and untenable.

15. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel

representing the contesting respondent Sri V.Ramaprasad

contends that the entire controversy boils down to the

legality and correctness of the order passed under the

provisions of the PTCL Act by the competent authorities

namely the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

Commissioner. If the land is held to be a granted land,

then the legal representative of the grantee i.e., Gowramma

would have any right and consequently, the person

claiming under her i.e., Shivapal as purchaser during the

year 2006 could have any locus standi to make any

grievance in these two writ petitions.

16

16. It is in that background, he has first addressed his

arguments in W.P.No.42727/2013. He points out that

admittedly Gowramma had filed application invoking the

provisions of the PTCL Act seeking restoration of land.

She did not make the purchaser from her i.e., either

Jadhavji Nagarwal as per Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 or

Sri V.Ramaprasad, who in turn purchased from him as per

Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978 as party respondents; she

chose to make one Prakash Babu as respondent though he

was totally unconnected. He also invites the attention of

the Court to the Sale Deed dated 16.11.2006 executed in

favour of Shivapal wherein it is recited that the land was

granted as per the provisions of Inams Abolition Act

recognizing the grantee as a ‘kadim tenant’ and hence, it

was a grant in recognition of the pre-existing right and not

a grant made as per the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed

thereunder. It is, therefore, contended by Sri

S.M.Chandrashekar that the provisions of the PTCL Act

had no application as the land was not a granted land.

17

17. It is his next contention that Shivapal and

Gowramma had filed W.P.No.8579/2013 and

W.P.No.40394/2013 respectively challenging the order of

the Deputy Commissioner. On 23.09.2013, in

W.P.No.40394/2013, this Court passed the following

order:

“…..Whether the lands in question have

been granted to the predecessor in title of the

petitioner under the Land Grant Rules?

No material has been produced by the

petitioner in this regard, nor is there a plea to

that effect in the writ petition…….”

18. Thereafter, the said writ petition was withdrawn on

07.10.2013. The effect of dismissal of this writ petition as

withdrawn as contended by Sri S.M.Chandrashekar is that

neither Gowramma nor Shivapal could assail the order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions

of the PTCL Act and Shivapal could not independently

maintain the writ petition when Gowramma had

abandoned her right. Reliance is placed on the judgment

18

in the case of SRI JAGADISH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY &

OTHERS – ILR 2013 KAR 4091 in this regard. Sri

S.M.Chandrashekar has also placed reliance on the Full

Bench decision in the case of Mohammed Jafar referred to

supra. He further points out that during 1958 when the

land was granted, non-alienation period was 15 years and

therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that

there was no violation of non-alienation condition even

assuming that it was to be treated as a granted land.

19. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar is critical of the conduct of

Gowramma in not making Sri Ramaprasad as a party or

his vendor Sri Jadhavji Nagarwal and thereafter, in

withdrawing the writ petition filed although the Court had

prima facie expressed its view and adjourned the case at

the request of Gowramma.

20. As regards the other writ petition in W.P.Nos.19997-

19998/2013, Sri S.M.Chandrashekar contends that

though Shivapal’s application seeking his impleadment

19

before the KAT had been dismissed, he came on record as

a second petitioner in these writ petitions, although the

order passed by the KAT had attained finality. He submits

that as Gowramma has been held not entitled for

restoration of land as per the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, she had no locus standi to challenge the

order passed by the KAT. It is his submission that the

land in question was used for non-agricultural purpose for

stone crushing and Ramaprasad was carrying on stone-

crushing business, therefore, it was not an agricultural

land and hence, the provisions of the Land Reforms Act,

particularly Section 79-A were not applicable.

21. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar urges that whether Jadhavji

Nagarwal had died if so when was not material. It is

submitted that death certificate produced in that regard

was a false document. He further points out that the

Assistant Commissioner who passed an order in a

proceeding initiated under Section 79-A of the Land

Reforms Act did not issue any notice to either Jadhavji

Nagarwal or Ramaprasad, therefore, there was violation of

20

principles of natural justice. He also points out that the

order was passed after 17 years from the date of purchase.

Sri Chandrashekhar relies on the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs.

FATMABAI IBRAHIM – (1997) 6 SCC 71 and the judgment of this

Court in the case of J.RAMA Vs. M.VITTAL BHAT - ILR 2011 KAR

5637 to contend that after such long lapse of time, the sale

could not have been set aside.

22. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and

perused the entire materials on record. Though the facts

narrated by the parties in these two sets of writ petitions

are complex covering several incidents and happenings,

the fact remains that there are two sets of orders passed

by the quasi judicial authorities that have led to filing of

these two sets of writ petitions. One set of proceeding is

initiated under the provisions of PTCL Act and another set

of proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of

Sections 79 & 80 of the Land Reforms Act.

21

23. So far as the proceeding initiated under the PTCL Act

is concerned, the same is initiated at the instance of

Gowramma the legal representative of the grantee, who

has sought for restoration of the granted land in her

favour. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the order

holding that the land was not a granted land as defined

under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act inasmuch as the

grant in favour of the original grantee was in recognition of

his pre-existing right under the provisions of Inams

Abolition Act.

24. So far as the legality or correctness of this order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the

legal question is no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this

Court in the case of Mohammed Jafar referred to supra has

held that if occupancy rights had been conferred as per the

provisions of the Land Reforms Act in favour of the tenant

in recognition of pre-existing right of the tenant, then such

grant cannot at all fall within the ambit of ‘granted’ land as

defined in Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act. By following the

said decision, in the case of SRI JAGADISH Vs. THE STATE OF

22

KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS

SECRETARY & OTHERS – ILR 2013 KAR 4091, a Division Bench of

this Court has held that where a person is enjoying the

land by virtue of a grant made in terms of the provisions of

Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act,

1954 in recognition of his pre-existing right over the land,

such a land cannot be treated as a granted land for the

purpose of PTCL Act.

25. Indeed, in the instant case, as adverted to above, in

the Sale Deed executed by Gowramma in favour of

Shivapal, it is stated that the land was granted recognizing

the rights of the original grantee as a ‘kadim tenant’ under

the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. In fact, the Deputy

Commissioner has also recorded independent findings in

this regard holding that the grant was under the

provisions of Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, in the light of

the judgment of the Full Bench and the Division Bench

referred to supra, the contention urged by Sri

S.M.Chandrashekar that the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner holding that the land was not a granted

23

land and the provisions of the PTCL Act had no application

deserves to be accepted. Indeed, as rightly held by the

Deputy Commissioner even if it was a granted land, as the

land was sold after the expiry of non-alienation period of

15 years, there was no violation of the provisions of the

PTCL Act.

26. It is not open for Gowramma or for that matter

Shivapal, purchaser from her to contend that the grant in

favour of Gowramma was under the provisions of the Land

Revenue Act and the same could not be considered as a

grant under the provisions of the PTCL Act. This is

contrary to the application filed by Gowramma herself

before the Assistant Commissioner wherein she has sought

relief under the provisions of the PTCL Act. There is no

other order of grant. Therefore, such a contention

advanced on behalf of Gowramma and Shivapal cannot be

accepted. Hence, it has to be held that the sale made by

the original grantee in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal in the

year 1976 was not hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act.

As the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order

24

behind the back of the purchasers from the original

grantee, the Deputy Commissioner was right and justified

in entertaining the appeals filed by Sri Ramaprasad and in

passing the order under challenge. Hence,

W.P.No.42727/2013 filed by Shivapal deserves to be

dismissed.

27. As regards W.P.Nos.19997-98/2013, wherein order

passed by the KAT has been called in question, it has to be

stated that once it is held that the land was not a granted

land and the sale made by the grantee/legal representative

of the grantee was not bad in law, even Gowramma will not

have any right to make any grievance regarding the

proceedings initiated under Section 79-A of Karnataka

Land Reforms Act against the purchaser from her which

has culminated in the K.A.T. order. Whether there is

violation of any of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act

is a matter between the State and the purchaser of the

land. Neither Gowramma, nor Shivapal-purchaser of the

very land in the year 2006 from her will have any locus

standi to make any grievance.

25

28. As rightly held by the KAT, proceedings under

Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been

initiated after 17 years from the date of purchase by

Jadhavji Nagarwal. The Assistant Commissioner passed

the order against Jadhavji Nagarwal on 24.05.1996.

Although the property had been purchased by

Ramaprasad in the year 1978, Ramaprasad was not made

a party. Therefore, the order insofar as Ramaprasad was

concerned has to be treated as one passed without

following the principles of natural justice.

29. Even as regards Jadhavji Nagarwal who was arrayed

as a party before the Assistant Commissioner, there is

nothing to show that notice was served on him. The

Assistant Commissioner proceeded on the basis that

though notice was issued, he did not appear, hence, notice

was affixed on a conspicuous place. Whether the notice

issued to him was served on him and which was the

conspicuous place where notice was affixed is not

mentioned in the order. Thus, an exparte order was

26

passed holding that no material had been produced by

Jadhavji Nagarwal to show that his annual income from

non-agricultural sources was less than `12,000/- and

therefore, it had to be held that he had violated the

provisions of Section 79-A and B of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act while purchasing the property and hence the

land was liable to be forfeited to the State. This order

cannot be regarded as legally sustainable. The KAT has

rightly set aside the same.

30. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.No.778/2011 and connected cases disposed of on

24.06.2011 in some what similar circumstances at

paragraph 23, it was too late in the day for the concerned

authority namely the Assistant Commissioner to allege

that the purchase made by Jadhavji Nagarwal in the year

1976 was unauthorized, by initiating proceedings during

the year 1995-96 after a lapse of 17 years, that too when

Jadhavji Nagarwal himself had parted with the land in

favour of Ramaprasad in the year 1978. The authorities

cannot prejudice the rights of the subsequent purchaser

27

namely Ramaprasad who has enjoyed the land for nearly

15 years after purchasing the same. If the authorities did

not discharge their obligation sincerely within the time,

they had no legal basis to examine the validity of purchase

made by Jadhavji Nagarwal way back in the year 1976,

that too when valid and legal rights came to be vested in a

third party V.Ramaprasad.

31. Even though limitation is not provided for initiating

action under Section 79-A of the Land Reforms Act, the

general rule is that proceedings have to be initiated within

a reasonable period and reasonable period could be a

period of one or two years and not 17 years. This Court in

the case of J.RAMA Vs. M.VITTAL BHAT - ILR 2011 KAR 5637 has

held so by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs. FATMABAI

IBRAHIM – (1997) 6 SCC 71. In the said case, the Apex Court

has observed as under :

‘Where no time-limit is prescribed for

exercise of power under a Statute, it does not

mean that it could be exercised at any time.’

28

32. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the

petitioners in both the cases stating that a dead person

was impleaded before the KAT has no relevance to the

controversy, as the lis was between Ramaprasad and the

State. The presence of Jadhavji Nagarwal in the

proceedings initiated before the KAT was of no

consequences.

33. In the result and for the foregoing, both the writ

petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

PKS