Facts
The petitioners challenged notices dated 9 April 2026 issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk.
Source reference: p.6The notices related to land that had been subject to proceedings against its erstwhile owner under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Those proceedings culminated in an ex parte forfeiture order dated 18 February 1997; the petitioners’ vendor later purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 8 April 2002, and the petitioners purchased it by registered sale deeds dated 15 May 2025.
Source reference: p.7–8The Court noted that the properties had been brought within BBMP limits and that the khata had been transferred to the vendor.
Source reference: p.8Issues
1. Whether the Tahsildar’s notices dated 9 April 2026 could stand in light of the omission and amendment of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
Source reference: p.6, p.8–92. Whether the notices should be set aside in view of the earlier ex parte forfeiture order and the subsequent registered transfers of the land.
Source reference: p.7–8Law Applied
The Court considered Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, under which the earlier proceedings against the erstwhile owner had been initiated.
Source reference: p.7–8It noted that those provisions had since been omitted and amended by the State. The Court also relied on its order dated 1 April 2025 in W.P. No. 12829 of 2023, without setting out that order’s reasoning or a broader legal test.
Source reference: p.8Reasoning
The Court observed that the 1997 forfeiture order had been passed ex parte after the respondents in those proceedings failed to appear.
Source reference: p.8It then considered the subsequent registered transfers, the inclusion of the properties within BBMP limits, and the khata transfer to the petitioners’ vendor. In light of those circumstances and the later omission and amendment of Sections 79A and 79B, together with the order in W.P. No. 12829 of 2023, the Court concluded that the writ petition should be allowed.
Source reference: p.8Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the notices dated 9 April 2026 issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk.
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the notices dated 9 April 2026 issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk.
Source reference: p.9Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19612
Original Court PDF
SMT. BAISANI UMA MAHESHWARIvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
