H. GIRIJA, D/O. SRI. HANUMAIAH, W/O. SRI. S. SHIVAKUMAR Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION AND SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH @ NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.