Karnataka High Court
Sri. B.S. Nagendra vs The Assistant Commissioner on 18 January, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NO.32673/2017 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. B.S. NAGENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
SON OF LATE B SESHAGIRI RAO,
NO.80, 15TH CROSS, AECS LAYOUT,
RMV II STAGE, SANJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560094. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU-561203,
DODDABALLAPUR.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BENGALURU-561203,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S V GIRIKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DTD:30.3.2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 79 A AND B OF THE
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, PERTAINING TO 2 ACRES
38 GUNTAS IN SY NO.143 OF VEERAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA
HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-
A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 30.3.2012 passed by first respondent - Assistant Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in confiscating an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas of land in Sy.No.143 of Veerapura Village, Kasba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, vide order at Annexure-A in No.LRF.SR(DO).247/2007-08, which is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by order dated 23.6.2017 in Appeal No.448/2016.
2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:
Petitioner herein claims himself to be an agriculturist and he is said to have purchased an extent of 2 acres 38 -3- guntas of land in Sy.No.143 of Veerapura village under a registered sale deed dated 13.2.2007 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Doddaballapur on 13.9.2005 vide document No.DBP.1.09651/2006-07. According to the petitioner, subsequent to purchase of land in question, he has secured conversion of land from agriculture to industrial purpose by order dated 30.5.2008 from Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, vide Annexure-H. Thereafter mutation entry has been made in his name. When matter stood thus, first respondent - Assistant Commissioner has issued a notice to him under Section 79- A and B seeking explanation as to why proceedings should not be initiated under Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) on the premise that there is violation of the provisions of the Act based on the report of the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur TAluk in No.CR.307/2007-2008 dated 1.1.2008. The notice issued by first respondent is in proceedings No. LRF.SR(D).247/2007-08.-4-
3. The grievance of petitioner is that though proceedings was initiated by first respondent and notice was issued to him to the address referred to in the sale deed, he was not residing in the address shown in the sale deed as on the date of initiation of said proceedings. According to him, he had shifted his residence and notice which was sent by first respondent to the address shown in the sale deed which he had vacated by then has not come to his notice. Therefore, he was unaware of the proceedings before first respondent which has culminated in order dated 30.3.2012 in confiscating the land purchased by him in Sy.No.143 of Veerapura village to the Government. Being aggrieved by the said order he has preferred an appeal under Section 118(2) of the said Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) in Appeal No.448/2016, wherein the Tribunal on appreciation of the documents available on record decline to interfere with the order of first respondent on the ground that there is delay in approaching the Tribunal by 3 years 11 months 26 days, which is not properly explained. It has also refused to believe the -5- submission of the petitioner that he was not residing in the address shown in the sale deed as on the date when proceedings was initiated before first respondent, that by the time notice was issued he had shifted his residence from said place and inmates of the land have not brought the same to his notice. Consequently, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 23.6.2017, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. In this proceedings, besides urging several grounds in challenge to the finding of the Tribunal in holding that appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation by 3 years 11 months 26 days cannot be justified, there is serious objection with reference to the judgment impugned on the premise that the petitioner is an agriculturist, besides him his entire family members are involved in agricultural activities and that the land which is subject matter of sale deed dated 13.2.2007 is purchased from out of the sale -6- consideration received by the family after sale of existing agricultural land should have been looked into. Indeed, both the Tribunal as well as Assistant Commissioner have not looked into the same to ascertain whether petitioner is an agriculturist or not. Besides that the Tribunal has not gone into the matter to ascertain whether there is violation of the provisions of Section 79A and B of the Act not only with reference to the status as an agriculturist but also with reference to income of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court find that even if first respondent were to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is not an agriculturist his income was more than Rs.50,000/- per annum, the same should be done only after giving him a fair opportunity to establish his status as an agriculturist and also that of his income at the relevant point of time of purchase of the land. Therefore, in the absence of ascertaining the same, the Tribunal has committed an error in proceeding to hold that the transaction culminating in sale deed dated 13.2.2007 is contrary to the provisions of Section 79A and B of the Act. -7-
5. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. The order of Assistant Commissioner dated 30.3.2012 in No.LRF.SR(DO).247/2007-08, which is confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated 23.6.2017 in Appeal No.448/2016 are hereby set aside and the matter is hereby remanded to the first respondent - Assistant Commissioner to be adjudicated afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to demonstrate that he was an agriculturist as on the date of purchase of land bearing Sy.No.143 of Veerapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, measuring to an extent of 2 acres 38 guntas and his income was less than Rs.50,000/- per annum. Only after giving sufficient opportunity to him and after looking into the documents to be filed in support of his case, first respondent shall proceed to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders in the remanded matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-