Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust on 22 June, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI
W.A. NO.1089 OF 2021 (LR)
IN
W.P.No.55344 OF 2017 (LR-RES)
C/W
W.P.No.3848 OF 2021 (KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. LAND TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE -560 009.
2
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE-560 009.
... APPELLANTS
(BY MR. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
MR. ARUNA SHYAM, ADDL. AG
MRS. VANI H, AGA)
AND:
JAMNALAL BAJAJ SEVA TRUST
AT 13 KM, MAGADI ROAD
VISHWANEEDAM POST
BANGALORE-560 091
REP. BY ITS SPECIAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER COL. B.K. NAIR.
... RESPONDENT
(BY MR. UDAYA HOLLA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. RAJESWARA P.N. ADV., FOR C/R IN
WP 55344/2017 (CP No.7361/2017)
MR. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, C/R IN WP 3848/2021)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS. SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.06.2021 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.55344/2017 C/W 3848/2021 AS
ILLEGAL. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER / DIRECTION AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal emanates from an order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, by which writ petitions preferred by respondent has been allowed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants, few facts need mention, which are set out hereinafter.
2. A public charitable trust viz., Jamna Lal Bajaj Seva Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust' for short), was formed on 07.09.1942. It is a Trust registered under the Bombay Trust Act, 1951. The aforesaid public charitable has been constituted with an object to provide relief to the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.
3. The Trust by resolutions dated 23.06.1958 and 15.10.1959, with an intention to set up an Ashram and Sarvoday International Centre at Bangalore, resolved to purchase land measuring 311 acres and 26 guntas including houses, flour mills, store rooms, factory building, motor pump, cattle shed, labour quarters, equipments etc. The 4 permission was granted to the Trust by the Registrar of Public Trust and Collector Wardha on 11.04.1960 to purchase the lands, buildings etc. for opening an Ashram near Bangalore in Mysore State. The Trust thereupon purchased lands measuring 311 acres and 26 guntas situate in Herohalli, Srigandhadakaval and Gidada Konenahalli, Bangalore vide registered sale deed dated 24.09.1960. The Trust thereafter, by a resolution dated 28.05.1960 appointed one Mr.Vallabhswamy to manage the property purchased by the Trust to establish International Sarvodaya Centre known as 'Vishwaneedam' and to carry out the activity in furtherance of the object of the Trust.
4. After the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974, the Trust filed a declaration on 31.12.1974 before the land tribunal under Section 66 of the Act, setting out the particulars of the land held by the Trust. Thereafter, the Trust on 29.10.2001 moved an application for dropping the proceeding before the land tribunal on the ground that the land in question is not an agricultural land. 5 The land tribunal by an order dated 01.12.2001 rejected the aforesaid application.
5. The Trust challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition viz., W.P.No.46841/2001, which was disposed of by an order dated 25.10.2005. It was inter alia held that tribunal does not lose jurisdiction to decide whether the land in question is a land defined under the Act and direction was issued to the land tribunal to hold an enquiry and to dispose of the matter at the earliest.
6. The Land Tribunal however, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Trust passed an order on 12.01.2010 and it was inter alia held that out of 403 acres of land belonging to the Trust, it holds vacant land measuring 213.30 acres in excess. However, the tribunal did not consider the question whether the lands held by the Trust fall within the definition of the land as defined under Section 2(A)(18) of the Act. The aforesaid order passed by the land tribunal was challenged in a writ petition No.4311/2010, which was decided by an order dated 23.04.2014. It was inter alia held that Trust was not afforded an opportunity of 6 being heard before passing the impugned order. The order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Land Tribunal.
7. After remand, the land tribunal directed the Tahsildar to hold a survey and submit a report regarding the land held by the Trust. Accordingly, a survey report was prepared on 28.07.2015 along with a map. The tribunal thereafter passed an order on 22.09.2015 and held that the Trust holds 265.24 acres of excess land. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Trust in W.P.No.14866/2015 and other connected matters, which was decided by an order dated 02.05.2019. The land tribunal was directed to consider the report of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.2015 and to record a finding with regard to nature of land use, extent of land and possession of the land in question. The land tribunal by an order dated 28.11.2017 inter alia held that Trust is entitled to hold only 20 acres of A class land out of total extent of 403 acres and had 354.10 acres of land as excess land.
8. Immediately after passing of the order, the revenue officials on 07.12.2017 changed the entry in the 7 revenue records and took possession of the land in question measuring 361.30 acres by drawing a mahazar. The Trust challenged the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by the Land Tribunal in W.P.No.55344/2017. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 30.06.2021 has allowed the writ petition and has inter alia issued the following directions.
(a) Writ petitions No.55344/2017 and
3848/2021 are allowed.
(b) Impugned order in Writ petition
No.55344/2017 dated 28th November 2017 (annexure-A) in LRF (CR) No.2099/1974-75, passed by Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru is quashed declaring that the lands in question fall within the latter part of definition under Section 2(18) of the Land reforms Act and hence, are not agricultural lands within the meaning of Section 2(18).
(c) The respondents shall deliver to the Trust, all that piece and parcel of lands, the possession of which they have taken on 07.12.2017 as per three mahazars viz., Annexures-AAH, AAH1 and AAH2 forthwith.
8
(d) The endorsement dated 08.01.2016 as per Annexure-C in W.P.No.3848/2021 is quashed. IN view of declaration that lands are not agricultural in nature, no further orders are necessary. However, liberty is reserved to the Trust to seek conversion of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.37/1P and 40/1 of Herohalli Village, Bangalore, if so advised. If an application is filed by h Trust, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same expeditiously in an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of such fresh application.
(e) The Registrar General shall send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, for compliance of directions in para 21 of this order.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.
9. Learned Advocate General for the appellant has invited the attention of this court to Form No.11 as well as the Annexure appended thereto filed by the Trust under the Act before the Land Tribunal on 31.12.1974 in which 9 particulars of the crops grown on the land in question have been mentioned as well as the nature of land has been described. It is urged that the instant case is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction and the jurisdictional facts have been conceded by the Trust. It is submitted that the contention of the trust that the land in question is not an agricultural land is liable to be rejected on the ground that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. It is contended that nature of land has to be ascertained as on 01.03.1974 and subsequent development or user of the land cannot be taken into account to ascertain its nature.
10. It is submitted that on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material on record, the tribunal has found that the lands in question are agricultural lands. However, the learned Single Judge grossly erred in not appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter and in setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to decisions in 'STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. SHANKARA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.', (1995) 1 SCC 295, ABDUL KHADER VS. 10 LAND TRIBUNAL, ILR 1986 KAR 1446, R.N.GOSAIN VS. YASHPAL DHIR', (1992) 4 SCC 683 and BHAGWAT SHARAN VS. PURUSHOTTAM', (2020) 6 SCC 389.
11. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the Trust submitted that character of the land and the purpose for which it is used, must be taken into account to determine whether the land is an agricultural land and the same cannot be stated to be so merely on the basis of the entries made in the revenue record. It is pointed out that there is no material on record to hold that the land is being used for agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that the Land Tribunal failed to appreciate that the land was acquired for setting up of an Ashram / International Sarvodaya Centre. It is submitted that the Trust ever since, the purchase of land was carrying on various social /rural development activities and was conducting programmes like family planning / immunization and eye camps. It is pointed out that the map prepared by the Tahsildar clearly indicates that the land is being used for non agricultural purposes and major chunk of the land was incapable of any agricultural operation. 11
12. It is argued that tribunal while passing the order did not consider the question whether the land held by the Trust falls within the definition of the land as prescribed under the Act. It is contended that the Act has no application to the lands held by the Trust. It is also contended that courts have a general parens patria jurisdiction in respect of the Trust, which is a religious and charitable trust. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'K.KUNHAMBU VS. CHANDRAMMA (SMT) AND OTHERS', (2004) 9 SCC 174, 'ITC LIMITED VS. BLUE COAST HOTELS LIMITED AND OTHERS', (2018) 15 SCC 99, 'MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY VS. SUJEET KAUR', (2010) 11 SCC 159, 'STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA KHANIJ VIKAS NIGAM SANGHARSH SAMITI AND OTHERS', (2008) 12 SCC 675, 'DUGAR TEA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS', (2016) 9 SCC 519, 'VIJAYA KUMAR VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, AFZALPUR AND OTHERS', 1991 (4) KAR. L.J.21, 'THE MALANKARA RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO. AND OTHERS ETC. VS. THE STATE OF KERALA AND 12 OTHERS ETC.', (1972) 2 SCC 492, 'BHAVANI TEA AND PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER', (1991) 2 SCC 463, 'K.SUBBA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA', ILR 1989 KAR 101, 'STATE OF GUJARAT VS. M/S KRISHNA CINEMA AND OTHERS', (1970) 2 SCC 744, 'COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, GIAN PRAKASH, NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER', (1986) 2 SCC 679, 'STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS VS. ASHOK KUMAR DANGI AND OTHERS', (2011) 13 SCC 383, and 'EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARTHANARESWARAR TEMPLE VS. R.SATHYAMOORTHY AND OTHERS', (1999) 3 SCC 115.
13. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) is an Act to enact a uniform law relating to land reforms in the State of Karnataka. Section 2(A)(18) of the Act defines the expression 'land', which is extracted below for the facility of reference.
13
"2(A)(18) "land" means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden land, pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include house- site or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes."
Thus, the land defined under the Act does not include house site or not the land used exclusively for non- agricultural purposes.
14. Chapter IV of the Act deals with ceiling of land holdings. Section 63 deals with ceiling on land. Section 63(7)(a) mandates that no educational religious or charitable institution or society or trust for public nature, capable of holding property, formed for an educational, religious or charitable purpose shall hold land except where the income from the land is appropriated solely for the institution or the society or the trust concerned. Where the land is so held by such institution, society or trust, the ceiling area shall be twenty units.
14
15. Section 66 of the Act deals with filing of declaration of holding. Section 66(1) of the Act reads as under:
"66. Filing of declaration of holding.--1[(a) Every person who on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act holds,--
(i) ten acres or more of lands having facilities for irrigation from a source of water belonging to the State Government; or
(ii) twenty acres or more of lands on which paddy crop can be grown with the help of rain water; or
(iii) forty acres or more of lands classified as dry but not having any irrigation facilities from a source of water belonging to the State Government, shall on or before the 31st day of December 1974]2;
(b) every person who acquires land in excess of the extent specified in clause (a) in any manner referred to in section 64; and
(c) every person whose land is deemed to be in excess of the ceiling area under section 65A, shall, within the prescribed period, furnish a declaration to the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the holding of such person or the greater part thereof is situated containing the following particulars, namely:--15
(i) particulars of all the lands;
(ii) particulars of the members of the family; and
(iii) such other particulars as may be prescribed. 2 (1-A) Where a person holds different categories of land mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1), the total extent of lands held by such person shall, for purposes of this section, be determined by converting all categories of land into any one category in accordance with the following formula, namely:--
One acre of land referred to in category (i)=two acres of land referred to in category (ii)=four acres of land referred to in category (iii)"
Thus, every person who holds the land in excess of the land specified in Section 66(1)(a) has to file a declaration to the Tahsildar on or before 31.12.1974, disclosing, the particulars of all the lands, particulars of members of family and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
16. In STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. SHANKARA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., supra, the Supreme Court inter alia held that mere fact that at the relevant time the land was not used for agricultural purpose or purposes subserving thereto as mentioned in Section 2(A)(18) of the 16 Act or that it was used for non-agricultural purpose, assuming it to be so, would not convert the agricultural land into a non-agricultural land for the purposes of either the Karnataka Land Revenue Act or the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It was further held that to hold otherwise would defeat the objects of both the Acts and would in particular render the provisions of Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act nugatory. The aforesaid decision was considered in K.KUNHAMBU Vs. CHANDRAMMA supra and in paragraph 10, it was held that the nature of land which was subject matter of consideration in SHANKARA TEXTILE, supra was indisputedly agricultural land and therefore, unless conversion is obtained under Section 95(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, it would not be excluded from the definition of expression 'land' as defined in Section 2(18) of the Act.
17. In ITC LTD. Vs. BLUE COAST HOTELS LTD. & OTHERS, it was held that character of the land, the purpose for which it is set apart, must be taken into account to determine whether the land is an agricultural land. It was 17 further held that the land cannot be stated to be an agricultural land merely because it stands as such in the revenue entries. In VIJAYA KUMAR Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL, AFZALPUR AND ORS., supra, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that a 'kharab' land does not fall within the meaning of the land as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act. In MALANKARA RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO. AND OTHERS and in BHAVANI TEA AND PRODUCE CO LTD., supra, it was held that rocky, sandy lands, hill sides, uncultivable land and forest lands are not agricultural lands and the houses with land covered by garden or orchid are not agricultural land. In 'NARAYANA DEVADIGA (DECEASED) BY LRS Vs. SMT.SHARADA AND OTHERS' 2001 SCC ONLINE KAR 633, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that mere existence of few fruit bearing trees in the compound of houses would not render the land as the land defined under Section 2(A)(18) of the Act.
18. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of survey map annexed to the survey report dated 28.07.2015 submitted by the Assistant Director of Land 18 Records (ADLR), in which the details of the land are mentioned as follows:
In the survey map annexed to the Report dated 28.07.2015, the land details are mentioned as follows:
EXTENT SL DETAILS A-G 1 CAMPUS AREA (ASHRAMA AREA, VINOBHA TRUSTED KHADI KENDRA) 51-36 HAVING STRUCTURES CONNECTED WITH PATH WAY 2 UNCULTIVABLE / BUNJARU AREA 45-12 3 VALLEY AND NALA AREA (MINIMUM TO MAXIMUM LEVEL TO BE SHOWN 80-00 IN TOPO MAP, 72M TO 112M 4 ROCKEY/DEEPIT AREA 65-27 5 KHARAB AREA AS PER RTC, SRIGANDADA KAVAL & 45-24 HEROHALLI 6 TEMPLE AREA 01-13 7 AREA ACQUIRED BY BDA 61-34 8 BANGALORE-MAGADI MAIN ROAD WIDEN AREA (BBMP) 03-15 9 KEBBEHALLA/GIDDADAKONEHALLI ROAD 03-03 10 MAJGRE AREA 01-19 11 ENCROACHMENT/BUILT ARE 17-34 12 VASATHIRAHITHARA SANGA AREA 14-11 13 TANK AREA SY.NO.15 & SY.50 11-23 GRAND TOTAL 403-11 19 Thus on perusal of the survey report, it is axiomatic that it does not disclose that any agricultural operations are/were being carried out in the land in question. A large chunk of land comprises uncultivable, Rocky/Deep pit area, valley, Nalla area, Tank as well as Kharab land, which cannot be treated to be an agricultural land. It is relevant to note that the lands that are acquired by BDA and for winding of the road, as well as area utilized for setting up of homes of landless persons, by the appellants has also been shown to be belonging to the Trust.
19. The trust is a public and religious charitable trust.
A resolution was passed by the Trust on 23.06.1958. The relevant extract of the resolution reads as under:
"17. Shri Kamalnayanji had a discussion with Acharya Vinoba Ji regarding crafting for people having faith in the ideology of Gandiji and Vinobaji. Shri Kamalnayanji put forth all these issues in front of the trustees. The summary is as follows.
I have been discussing with Rev. Vinobaji for the last six months or so. I came to my mind that Sarvodaya people and Sarva Seva Sangh are already working towards promoting Gandhi Ji's life and 20 literature. The same needs to be done to delve deeply into the life-work of Vinoba Ji and Promote his ideology in an organized manner. Such an Institution will touch the hearts of people who strive for transformation of society thro an intellectual revolution and produce a civilization of renovated social norms based on the manifestation of love and camaraderie in human lives. Only time will truly prove and assess how successful such an intellectual and moral movement based on truth, non violence and love will be. It will be great if it succeeds. Even if it succeeds partially or goes away, I am not worried about it at present. What I really believe is that irrespective of such movements doing will, or otherwise India needs several places which are pleasant, with pious environment, which is pure, places where peace, tranquillity and happiness permeate the surroundings. At least one such beautiful place needs to be founded as an Ashram in which Rev. Gandhi Ji's and Vinoba Ji's ideals, their literature, life-work research, experience, teaching- learning, understanding, rumination, contemplation, practice can be facilitated under favourable conditions. This Ashram would be sympathetic towards Sarvodaya movement and Sarvodaya modus operandi. It will enrich the ideas; yet will not be consumed in their movements. It will be international centre for the devout and sagaciously inclined people form all over the world who have faith in Gandhi Vinoba ideals and strive for salvation.21
Conductive atmosphere should be provided here along with facilities to encourage people form all walks of live like the literati, artists, engineers, doctors, constructive village, workers in fact people across the spectrum should benefit from the lives of these great men.
Mutts or Ashrams of spiritualist Gurus like Shankaracharya, Ramanjacharya, Vallabhacharya and Madhvacharya have been in existence in India for thousands of years, places which are conducive to understand and research, teach and learn the philosophy and traditions of these great spirtualists. Although over eons, a lot of flaws have crept into these mutts and efforts should be made to correct them, it's a fact that a great deal of historical, philosophical, heritage value is still attributed to these spiritualists' mutts even today. Gandhi Ji and Vinoba Ji too have started Ashrams and conscientiously sacrificed them at the altar of national activities to attain freedom. These were exemplar conducts demonstrating their sacrifice, selflessness and non- possessiveness. Considering the state of affairs of the nation and demands of the movement, whatever they did was essential. Still, it is the responsibility of the civil society that the lives and times of these epochal men can be pursued at place like Ashrams where their philosophies can be understood, which can uphold the traditions and cultures for hundreds or may be thousands of years if possible. It is entirely possible that only the outward appearance of these 22 great souls remain there. Even if we can achieve that, future generations can at least look back at the live of these grant souls to inspire themselves to seize up epoch changing initiatives. If we can even partially facilities such institutions this will indeed be noblest of endeavour. If we can even partially facilitate such institutions this will indeed be noblest of endevour. Rev, Vinoba Ji has blessed an concurred to set up such an Ashram in Bangalore in South India. A few of his disciples have come forward to stay there and take up responsibility. I have identified many such farms of 50-200 acres with adequate water, pleasant surroundings and pious environment fit for an Ashram. Such a land or any other such land has to be chosen. The cost of land is estimated to be around Rupees One Lakh. Substantial expenditure would be incurred repair and maintenance of old and dilapidated buildings, water bodies, building of compound, building of necessary new structures, building of roads, landscaping, garden plantations etc., Vinoba Ji's opinion is that such an Ashram should come up near Bangalore in South India.
This whole concept was highly appreciated by Rev. Vinoba Ji. He also said that 4-5 such Ashrams should come up all over India. I suggested that Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust is willing to take up the responsibility of funding around Rupees One Lakh on such a project. The land can be purchased either in the name of a new trust or in the name of JBST, or alternatively, given on lease to some new trust to run 23 JBST Ashram. At this suggestion, Rev. Vinob Ji opined that since he has a long standing bond with Jananalgi, the Ashram land should be in the name of JBST, and Kakaji's (Jamnala ji) name in it is wholly justified.
Pursuant to this discussion, the Chairman of the trust Shri Kamalanayan Ji is authorized to purchase 100-200 acres of land in or around Bangalore. The ownership may rest with either JBST or a new trust created for this purpose.
Rev. Vinoba ji has appreciated the vision of such Ashrams and blessed this concept. He has agreed to constantly guide in this matter and from his side, endorsed the appointment of Shri Vallabhaswamy as the first administrator of this Ashram.
JBST believes that by establishing such an Ashram, service would be rendered to the nation and all possible help and co-operation should be extended to such an endeavour. JBST authorizes the Chairman Shri Kamalkanyam ji to complete all necessary formalities."
Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid resolution, it is evident that the land was purchased with a view to set up an ashram.
20. The District Collector, Wardha and the Registrar of Public Trust granted the permission to the Trust on 24 11.04.1960 to invest Trust fund for purchasing new property in the name of Trust and for opening an ashram near Bengaluru in Mysuru State. The Trust thereupon, vide registered sale deeds dated 24.09.1960, purchased the land. The particulars of the land as described in the sale deed are as under:
"(a) one house is S.No.40 two houses in Survey No.37/2 and (b) factory Building Stone room and Flour mill in S.No.37/1 all in Herohalli village
(c) Cottage shed and labours quarters in S.No.40 (d) Pump houses in s.No.40, 41, 47 & 49 (e) 3 pairs of bullocks ploughs and agricultural implements inclusive of sugarcane crusher motors and (4) five pumps - viz. one fixed in deep well one domestic pump fixed storage tank, one to sugandha Bhavi and one to engine well and one to - R.anantha Subramanyam A.V.Subramanyam A. Gopala Swamy A.Ramaswamy, A. Swamynath - 10 to the Sump (c) on S.No.41 of Gidadakonenahalli (but exclusive of power driver appliances.
Tractor and Building materials."
21. The Trust filed a declaration under Section 66 of the Act in Form No.11 on 31.12.1974 in which it was 25 mentioned that the trees of coconut, guava, gross, linola, centrenola, etc. are situated on the land and details of 'kharab' land as well as the area covered under buildings, wells, roads as well as area given for establishing Khadi Vidyala, etc. was also mentioned. However, no decision was taken on the aforesaid declaration furnished by the Trust on 31.12.1974 and thereafter, the Trust moved an application on 29.10.2001 to drop the proceedings under the Act as the land in question was not an agricultural land.
22. It is pertinent to note that the Assistant Commissioner, by a communication dated 16.11.1998, sent to the Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, had sought a clarification with regard to declaration filed by the Trust under Section 66 of the Act. In the aforesaid communication, it was stated that two villages namely Srigandadakaval and Herohalli have been brought within the urban agglomeration, Bengaluru in the master plan. The relevant extract of the communication reads as under:
"10. On reading of Section 2(o) and 2(g) of the ULC Act, any land situated in an urban 26 agglomeration and not being mainly used for the purpose of agriculture in such case only, the land can be considered as vacant land. But in this case the land in question was an agriculture land as on 17.02.1976, on which date the provisions of Urban Land Ceiling Act came into force and continues to be so even today and of course the area covered by buildings as on that date and the appurtenant area provided for such buildings can be considered as vacant land.
11. According to Sec.19(1)(iv) ULC Act, the Trust are permitted to hold the vacant land and according to which the Trust can hold 342 acres of land which comes within the urban agglomeration area if the judgment rendered in the case of Krishna Bhimrao Deshpande Vs. Land Tribunal Dharwad and others referred to above is taken into consideration. The remaining area which lies beyond urban agglomeration area will also be permitted to be held by the Trust, in view of the fact that the Trust can hold agriculture land upto 20 units as per Sec.63(7) of the Land Reformat Act, 1961."
Thus, it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner himself sought the guidance from the State Government whether the 'land' within the meaning of Section 2(A)(18) of 27 the Act or the same could be held by the Trust as the land held by Trust situated in 2 out of 3 villages falls within the Bangalore Urban Agglomeration. However, the aforesaid communication failed to evoke any response from the State Government.
23. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid material on record namely the resolution passed by the Trust, the permission accorded to the Trust by the Registrar Public Trust, particulars of land mentioned in sale deed, particulars of the land furnished in From No.11 under Section 66 of the Act, which are anterior in point of time i.e. to 01.03.1974 it is axiomatic that lands were not being used for agricultural purposes. Even though communication dated 16.11.1998 sent by Assistant Commissioner to the State Government is later in point of time yet it depicts that land held by two villages out of three villages namely Srigandadakaval and Herohalli fall within Urban Agglomeration and therefore the same could not be treated as Agricultural land. Similarly, the report of Tahsildar dated 28.7.2015 though subsequent in period of time discloses that land was not being used for 28 Agricultural purposes. It is not the case of appellants that subsequent to 1.3.1974, the Trust has changed the uses of the land. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that as on 01.03.1974, the land in question was not an agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(A)(18) of the Act.
24. For yet another reason, the order passed by the Land Tribunal cannot be sustained as this Court, by an order dated 02.05.2019 passed in W.P.No.41866/2015 had directed the Land Tribunal to consider the report of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.2015 and to record a finding with regard to nature of the land. The aforesaid direction issued by this Court is binding on the Land Tribunal. However, the Land Tribunal wholly ignored the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 28.07.2015 and recorded a conclusion that the land is an agricultural land. It is pertinent to note that there is no material on record to show that any kind of agricultural activity was undertaken by the Trust on the land in question. On the other hand, from the map prepared by the Tahsildar, it can safely be inferred that large chunk of land was full of boulders, deep pits and is incapable of 29 agricultural operations even on 01.03.1974. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly concluded that the land in question is a non-agricultural land and the same does not fall within the 'land' as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act.
25. As far as the submission that the Trust cannot be allowed to reprobate and approbate and cannot be permitted to change its stand with regard to nature of land is concerned, no doubt, the Trust had filed declaration under Section 66 of the Act and hand furnished the particulars of land from which it can be inferred that the same was a non- agricultural land. However, no orders were passed on the aforesaid declaration and thereafter the Trust realizing its mistake filed an application on 29.10.2001 to drop the proceedings as the lands in question were not agricultural lands. Before an order could be lapsed on the application filed under Section 66 of the Act, same was sought to withdrawn on 29.10.2021. The Land Tribunal was therefore bound to adjudicate the nature of land in order to decide the issue with regard to applicability of the Act. In any case, an Adjudicating Authority is required the adjudicate the 30 jurisdictional facts and to record a finding with regard to applicability of the Act and there cannot be any estoppel against the statute.
In view of preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SS