Karnataka High Court
Sri Sridhar Maiya @ Sridhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.23944/2019(LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SRIDHAR MAIYA @ SRIDHAR
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA MAIYA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. SMT. A. V. MALINI,
SRI SRIDHAR MAIYA @ SRIDHAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.14,
1ST A CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
BEML LAYOUT,
KAMALANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION,
RAMANAGAR-571511.
2
3. THE TAHASILDAR
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA-571511.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADDL. GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
......
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 22.2.2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER
DATED 16.4.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL No.595 OF 2017 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C AND DROP THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
BY THE R-2 U/S 79A AND B OF THE KARNATAKA LAND
REFORMS ACT 1961 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that, W.P.Nos.23942-943/2019 filed in respect of the very sale deed dated 20.08.2015 vide Annexure-A in respect of Sy.No.42/2 measuring 1.3 guntas, have been allowed 3 by this Court, the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been set-aside, confirming the Order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
3. The submission is placed on record.
4. Heard Sri. S.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents-State. Perused the records.
5. Petitioners who are husband and wife have purchased land measuring 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.42/2 (old No.42) and 42/1 (old No.42) measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situated at Dasarahalli Village, Kootagal Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District, under registered sale deed dated 20.08.2015 - Annexure-A. On the premise that there is violation of Sections 79A and 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), third respondent forwarded a report and based on 4 said report second respondent initiated proceedings in LRF:79(A)(B)/RA/95/2015-16 by issuing notice to petitioners.
6. On service of notice, petitioners appeared and filed documents in support of their stand namely they had income of less than `25,00,000/- and they were agriculturists by profession. Thus, based on the said documents second respondent passed an order dated 22.02.2017-Annexure-B holding that petitioners have violated Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and ordered for forfeiture of land in favour of Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal came to be preferred in Appeal No.595/2017 before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
7. By reiterating their stand taken before Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner, income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15 came to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. The 5 Tribunal, after noticing income of petitioners for aforesaid years held that for the Assessment Year 2015- 16 returns has not been furnished, but what has submitted is only for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, which would be of no relevance for adjudicating the issue in question. Hence, on the ground that appellants have not submitted the income tax returns of first appellant for the Assessment Year 2015-16, an adverse inference has been drawn against appellants and thereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner by order dated 16.04.2019- Annexure-C. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.
8. Per Contra, Smt.M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-authorities would vehemently contend that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the authorities calling for interference at the hands of this 6 Court. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties, it is noticed that Sri.S.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners is justified and correct in contending that income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 relating to first appellant produced at Annexure-D would clearly indicate that gross income of first appellant was `4,66,660/- and as such transaction of sale relating to sale deed dated 20.08.2015 cannot be found fault with nor it cannot be held that petitioners had violated conditions prescribed under Section 79A of the 'Act'. A plain reading of explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 79A would clearly indicate that if the income of a person or a family or a joint family having assured income of not less than rupees twenty five lakhs from sources other than agricultural land shall be entitled to acquire the 7 agricultural land. In other words, if the assured annual income during a period of five (5) consecutive years preceding the date of purchase does not exceed rupees twenty five lakhs, prohibition contained under Section 79-A would not be attracted. The words "rupees twenty five lakhs" occurring in sub-section 79-A of the Act has been substituted for the words "rupees two lakhs" by Act 33 of 2015 with effect from 13.08.2015. Sale deed in question is dated 20.08.2015 i.e., having come into existence after the amendment and thereby amended provision would be applicable. In other words, the upper limit of rupees twenty five lakhs fixed under Section 79-A(1) would be applicable to the sale transaction in question.
10. In the light of income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 also indicating the income of first appellant was less than `25,00,000/- and for the assessment years 2014-15, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 8 2011-12 was `11,11,988, `5,17,289/-, `2,79,799/- and `3,13,814/- respectively. Thus, the average assured annual income of the petitioner never went beyond the aforesaid figures or in other words, it was less than `25,00,000/-. Hence, impugned order cannot stand the test of law. In fact, Appellate Tribunal only on the ground that income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 having not been produced by petitioners has dismissed the appeal. In the light of the income tax returns for the said assessment years now being available on record as Annexure-D, which also reflects the income of first petitioner being less than `25,00,000/-, restriction imposed under Section 79A of the Act is not attracted to the transaction of sale in question.
11. In view of the above, the Writ petition is allowed. The Order dated 22.02.2017 passed by second respondent in LRF:79(A)(B)/RA/95/2015-16 - 9 Annexure-B as confirmed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.595/2017 by order dated 16.04.2019-Annexure-C are quashed.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four (4) weeks from today.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm