Karnataka High Court
Shri. Jogee S. Bhar vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2017
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.32554/2011
& WP.43198/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.32554/2011 &
W.P.No.43198/2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
SRI JOGEE S.BHAR,
S/O BALAWANT SHINGH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.19, OUTER CIRCLE,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560066. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri ASHOK B.PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPT.OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
PODIUM BLOCK,
VISHVESWARAIAH TOWERS,
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DT.8.4.11 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.1366/2006
WP.32554/2011
& WP.43198/2011
2
VIDE ANNEX-P, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REMITTING THE
MATTER BACK TO THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR FRESH
DISPOSAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.1366/2006 insofar it (Tribunal) directs remand of the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration.
2. Main contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is that having regard to the specific plea taken by the petitioner before the Tribunal that the very initiation of the proceedings under Section 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, 'the Act') was without authority of law, the Tribunal ought not have remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Indeed, it is apparent from the order passed by the Tribunal that petitioner had taken such a contention referring to the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court as also that of the Tribunal itself in several cases as is evident from WP.32554/2011 & WP.43198/2011 3 paragraph III (1) of the order passed by the Tribunal impugned in these writ petitions. Legal contention urged by the petitioner was that as the sale transaction under which petitioner acquired title to the property was dated 26.12.1992 and the proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 79A, 79B & 80 of the Act nearly after 3 years during the year 1995, it was not open for the authorities to exercise suo-motu powers to examine the legality and correctness of sale transaction that had taken place almost 3 years ago. In support of this contention, petitioner herein had placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of RAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - (1994) 1 SCC 44 and in the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs. FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.A.No.8643/1996 on 09.02.1998 in the case of M/S.SAROJ AGENCIES VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. In the aforementioned two judgments of the Apex Court, it has been laid down that wherever law confers power to initiate suo-motu enquiry by the revenue authorities with regard to any illegalities, such power has to be exercised within a reasonable period even though no time limit was prescribed for exercising such power under the statute. WP.32554/2011 & WP.43198/2011 4
4. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to supra, in similar circumstances, where suo-motu proceedings were initiated exercising power under Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act, in paragraph 4, reference has been made to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL RAGHAV NATHA AND OTHERS - AIR 1969 SC 1297 wherein, while considering the suo-motu power under Bombay Revenue Code, it has been held that such power has to be exercised within a reasonable period which would mean not more than few months. The Division Bench has further referred to the judgments in the case of RAM CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - (1994) 1 SCC 44 and also to the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs. FATMABAI IBRAHIM - (1997) 6 SCC 71 to hold that wherever no limitation was prescribed for exercising suo-motu power, the same was required to be exercised within a reasonable time and such time shall not exceed more than one year.
5. In view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench by referring to catena of judgments of the Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is right and justified in contending that in the instant case, suo-motu power under Sections 79A and 79B of the Act having been exercised by the Assistant WP.32554/2011 & WP.43198/2011 5 Commissioner nearly after lapse of 3 years from the date of sale transaction, the same has to be characterized as illegal and the order passed thereon has to be set aside.
6. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter. Though the judgments relied upon by the petitioner have been referred to in the body of the order passed by the Tribunal, the effect of the said judgments has not been considered. The effect of the said judgments is certainly to nullify the action initiated by the Assistant Commissioner undertaking the exercise of examining the legality or correctness of the sale transaction of the year 1992. The salutary principle underlying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court is to put at rest such controversies keeping in mind the nature of rights acquired under the registered Sale Deeds and the developments that the parties could have carried out in respect of land in question based on such title acquired over a period of time. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason why the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration to the Assistant Commissioner when the law declared by the Apex Court and this Court as referred to above make it very clear that after such belated period suo- motu power shall not be exercised by the revenue authorities. WP.32554/2011 & WP.43198/2011 6
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also right and justified in inviting the attention of the Court to the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal passed in Appeal No.236/2004 disposed of on 28.11.2007 in the case of very petitioner in respect of another transaction which is produced at Annexure- N whereunder by following the decision rendered by the Division Bench and the judgments of the Apex Court referred to supra, the Tribunal has set aside the proceedings initiated under Sections 79A and 79B by the Assistant Commissioner in respect of another land purchased by the very petitioner on the very ground that the proceedings were not initiated within a reasonable period and were initiated belatedly. The Tribunal ought to have followed the said judgment.
8. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Proceedings initiated by the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 79A and 79B read with Section 80 of the Act stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS