MOHAMMAD MURTHUZA AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner purchased 5 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.113/1 of Anesidri Village, Javanagondanahalli Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, under a sale deed dtd. 11/2/2008. Proceedings were initiated by the competent authority i.e., the Assistant commissioner, Chitradurga Sub-division in case bearing No.79 (A) CR 112/2008-09 for violation of the proceedings contained in Sec. 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The petitioner contested the matter before the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass an order dtd. 30/6/2009 holding that the average agricultural income of the petitioner as on the date of the purchase of the land was Rs.7,30,152.00 per annum and therefore the annual agricultural income of the petitioner exceeded the limit of Rs.2,00,000.00 as provided in Sec. 79A and 79B and therefore the land was forfeited to the Government. The appeal filed at the hands of the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.717/2009 was dismissed by order dtd. 30/4/2015, while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the petitioner filed a review petition within the prescribed period of one month in Review Petition No.7/2015 and the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order dtd. 23/11/2022 rejecting the review petition on the ground that no error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 2020, Karnataka Act No.56 of 2020, the provisions contained in Ss. 79A, 79B and 79C have been omitted.

(3.) Learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to an order passed by this Court in the case of Sri R.Srinivas Raju /vs./ The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.24430/2021 dtd. 5/1/2022 and submits that the effect of the omission of the provisions contained in Sec. 79A, having regard to the saving clause contained in sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 12 of the Amending Act would be that, since the review petition was pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal as on the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance, 2020 the proceedings initiated under Sec. 79A stood abated.