NAGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner i. e. , Sri Ajay holding brief from Sri L. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioners have sought the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order bearing No. Hud 24 uee 89, Bangalore, dated 24-4-1993 passed by 1st respondent (Annexure-e to the writ petition) as well as notice bearing No. Ulc sr:53:93-94, dated 13-6-1996 issued by the 3rd respondent (Annexure-D) and also notice bearing No. Ulc:sr:53:76-77, dated 25-11-1996 issued by the 3rd respondent (Annexure-g to the writ petition ).

(3.) THE facts of the case in the nutshell are that the petitioners vide order dated 2-2-1985 issued by the government of karnataka, sought exemption of vacant land specified in the schedule to Annexure-a. This land was held by babu kotian. The exemption was granted subject to the following conditions: (1) that the land should actually be used only for agriculture. (2) that whenever the land is proposed to be used for any other purpose, prior intimation should be given to the government and the competent authority concerned and prior permission of government should be taken. (3) that the land should not be transferred by sale, gift, lease, or otherwise without the previous permission of the government and that the land should not be sub-divided and sold. There is however no objection to mortgage of the land without possession to support a loan from a bank or finance institution. (4) that if at any time, if any of the conditions (1) to (3) is violated or if the state government or any other public agency require the exempted land for its own use, then the state government may withdraw the exemption under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976. Subject to the these conditions, the exemption under Section 20 of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 was granted with respect to the land. Subsequently by order dated 24-4-1993 (Annexure-E) the state government held that babu kotian had violated the terms of the exemption and accordingly the exempted lands were liable to be taken over. A reading of the order Annexure-E which had been read over and explained to me in english clearly reveals that before passing the order dated 24-4-1993, babu kotian was given an opportunity to show cause and his objections were considered. Thereafter, government found that there has been violation of the conditions of the exemption order and so it withdrew the exemption and directed the deputy commissioner to take possession of the land. In pursuance of the Order, notice anenxure-d dated 13-6-1996 and Annexure-G dated 25-11-1996 were issued by the tahsildar and the deputy commissioner. Feeling aggrieved by that Order, the petitioner has come up before this court under Article 226 of the constitution.