Karnataka High Court
Sri Gangadhara S vs The Assistant Commissioner on 9 November, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION No.5320/2016 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI GANGADHARA.S
S/O SRI. SHIVANNA.R
AGED 23 YEARS
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/AT DASANAPURA,
DASANAPURA VILLAGE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-562 123
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B.RAVINDRA PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-561 203
2. THE TAHSILDAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK
NELAMANGALA-562123
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.S.BUDIHAL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
2
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING APPEAL NO.380/2008 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE AUTHORITY DTD.30.12.2015 VIDE
ANNEX-F AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PROCEEDINGS
PASSED BY THE R-1 DTD.7.3.2008 VIDE ANNEX-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.
2. The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order of the respondents holding that the petitioner is in violation of the provision of Section 79A and B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short).
3. The case of the petitioner is that the grand father one Rangahanumaiah was an occupant and agriculturist of the land bearing Sy.No.114/4 and 85/5A. That the respondent No.2 has issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner is an agriculturist. On 27.05.2005, the petitioner purchased the land comprised in Sy.No.74/4 measuring 2 3 acre 24 guntas situated at Dasanpura, Bengaluru Rural District. That on 24.03.2007, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 79A and B of the Act. The respondent No.1 was pleased to uphold the action against the petitioner and was pleased to allow the application preferred by respondent No.2 alleging contravention of provisions of Section 79A and B of the Act on the premise that the cumulative income of the petitioner and his parents was in excess of the stipulated maximum limit of Rs.2 Lakhs. That the Appellate Tribunal has observed that the petitioner has not produced either before the Authority or before the Court the documents to demonstrate compliance of provision of Section 79A and B of the Act.
4. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner having failed to place on record material before the Authorities, he cannot now be permitted to bring on record the material like RTC etc., which shows that the property stands in the name of his grand father Rangahanumaiah. The said submission 4 requires to be rejected at the threshold and it is accordingly rejected.
5. Prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that the order suffers from a foundational error and that the respondents could not have taken into consideration the income of the petitioner's parents.
6. Sub-Section 12 of Section 2 defines family as below:
"[(12) "family" means,-
(a) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and unmarried daughters, if any;
(b) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters;
(c) in the case of an individual who is a divorced person and who has not remarried, such 5 individual and his minor sons and unmarried daughters, whether in his custody or not; and
(d) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried daughters;]"
7. From a bare perusal of the provision, it is apparent that the parents of the purchaser are not included within the definition of the term family. There could be no two opinion that the inclusion of the income earned by the parents to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provision of Section 79A and B of the Act is wholly unsustainable. Hence, the conclusion that the purchase of the land by the petitioner is in the teeth of prohibition of Section 79A of the Act is unsustainable. Therefore, the same requires to be rejected and it is accordingly held so.
8. With regard to the alleged violation of provision of Section 79B is concerned, it is seen that the petitioner has been pleased to produce phanis of agricultural lands, from 6 the commencing year 1968 to 1969 there onwards till date. The said revenue documents produced before the Court are not admitted nor controverted.
9. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned HCGP that the documents brought before this Court are placed for the first time and that the Authorities had no opportunity to examine the correctness of the same.
10. That being the so, ends of justice would be served if this writ petition is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration with regard to the alleged violation of provision of Section 79B of the Act only.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside. The matter i.e., Case No.L.R.F.S.R(Ne) 89/2006-07 is remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration with regard to the alleged violation 7 of Section 79B of the Act alone and disposal in accordance with law.
Learned HCGP is permitted to file memo of appearance.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM