B.G. LAKSHMIKANTARAJA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) in Appeal No. 726/2006 dated 12/08/2013 (Annexure -K) as well as the order of the second respondent -Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, dated 11/07/1997 (Annexure -G) are assailed in this writ petition. Briefly stated, the facts according to the petitioner are that he had purchased land bearing Sy. No. 102/2 situated at Amruthahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, measuring 01 acre 01 gunta under a registered sale deed dated 05/07/1991 from one Sri. Marappa son of late Sonnappa for a valuable consideration, a copy of the sale deed is produced at Annexure -D. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and therefore, was entitled to purchase the aforesaid land. Subsequently, in the year 1997, the second respondent initiated proceedings under Section 79A read with Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the premise that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and therefore, was not entitled to purchase the aforesaid land. The petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner. By order dated 11/07/1997, the Assistant Commissioner held that the petitioner was not an agriculturist and therefore, was not entitled to purchase the land in question and passed an order forfeiting the said land to the State. Strangely, that order was assailed by the legal representatives of the vendor of the petitioner in Appeal No. 345/2001 before the Tribunal. That appeal was dismissed by an order dated 09/02/2004 not only on the ground of delay, but also by holding that the appellants therein had no right to file an appeal as they were not aggrieved persons. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 726/2006 before the Tribunal. Appeal No. 760/2006 filed by one Venkatesh is not a subject matter of this writ petition. The Tribunal, by its order dated 12/08/2013 dismissed the appeal on two counts. Firstly on account of there being a delay of eight years ten months and twenty four days in filing the appeal and secondly, on account of the fact that Appeal No. 345/2001 filed by the legal representatives of the vendor of the petitioner had been dismissed and therefore, that order was squarely applicable to the petitioner's appeal also. Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and stated that the petitioner has not appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and therefore, no further opportunity can be granted to him at this point of time.