Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gurumallappa and Another Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Others

Gurumallappa and Another vs The Assistant Commissioner and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 27, 2014
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1173530

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No.37824 of 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gurumallappa and Another

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner and Others

Excerpt

(prayer: this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to quash the order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the r 1 in r.a.no.82/2012-13 vide annexure-a.) 1. this writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.06.2014, wherein the assistant commissioner, kollegal sub-division has declared purchase of the land measuring 3 acres 99 cents by petitioner no.2 on 20th april 2011 as void on the ground that the purchase was violative of sections 79a and 79b of the karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (the 'act'). 2. by consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the petition is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this order.  3. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, no show-cause notice was issued to petitioner no.2 re.validity of the purchase and therefore, the petitioners had no opportunity to show that the purchase was not contrary to the provisions of the act. hence, he contends that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 4. learned high court government pleader fairly submits that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners regarding validity of purchase of the land. 5. as no show-cause notice was issued to petitioner no.2r the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. further, the finding recorded by the assistant commissioner that purchase of the land was violative of sections 79a and 79b of the act is outside the scope of the proceeding as the proceeding related to only change of khatha and it was not an inquiry under section 83 of the act. accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the assistant commissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted to the assistant commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. all contentions of both the parties are kept open. petition disposed of.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Dated 17.06.2014 Passed By The R 1 In R.A.No.82/2012-13 Vide Annexure-A.)

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.06.2014, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-division has declared purchase of the land measuring 3 acres 99 cents by petitioner No.2 on 20th April 2011 as void on the ground that the purchase was violative of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (the 'Act').

2. By consent of the learned Counsel on both sides, the petition is heard on merits and is being disposed of by this order. 

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, no show-cause notice was issued to petitioner No.2 re.validity of the purchase and therefore, the petitioners had no opportunity to show that the purchase was not contrary to the provisions of the Act. Hence, he contends that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners regarding validity of purchase of the land.

5. As no show-cause notice was issued to petitioner No.2r the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner that purchase of the land was violative of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act is outside the scope of the proceeding as the proceeding related to only change of Khatha and it was not an inquiry under Section 83 of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.06.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.

Petition disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial