Karnataka High Court
M/S Vrkp Steel Industries (P) Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7973
WP No. 6103 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.6103 OF 2024 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S VRKP STEEL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.952, 21ST MAIN,
BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE 560070
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR VINOD AGARWAL.
2. SRI VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL
S/O SHRI BHAGIRATH PRASAD AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
Digitally signed by R/AT NO.952, 21ST MAIN,
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH BSK II STAGE,
COURT OF BANGALORE 560070
KARNATAKA
3. MR KUSHAL AGARWAL
S/O VINOD AGARWAL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.952, 21ST MAIN,
BSK II STAGE,
BANGALORE 560070
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURUDAS S KANNUR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVA SHANKAR C., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7973
WP No. 6103 of 2024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION,
KANDHYA BHAVAN,
BANGALORE 560001
3. THE THASILDAR
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
KRISHNARAJA PURAM,
BANGALORE 560036
4. SRI LALCHAND GOYAL
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR,
R/OF NIMBEKAIPURA VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, K R PURAM,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD 23.10.2001 VIDE ANNEXURE-K PASSED BY THE R-2 IN
LRF(83)47/1995-96 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUESH THE ORDER
DTD 25.4.2007 OF R-2 IN VIDE ANNEXURE-L IN MR 22/2006-
07 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7973
WP No. 6103 of 2024
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents No.1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary for the following reasons:
2. The petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the Directors of the company. They are aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 23.10.2001 at Annexure-K and consequential order at Annexure-L in M.R.No.22/2006-07.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gurudas Kannur appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 herein purchased the lands in question bearing Sy.No.80 and 81 measuring 4 acres 28 guntas under two sale deeds dated 12.12.2001 and another sale deed dated 10.11.2003. Learned Senior Counsel submits that even at the time when the petitioners herein purchased the lands, it was by way of winding up proceedings pending before this Court in COP -4- NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 74/1998, wherein the previous vendors/owners had borrowed loan from M/s.Canara Bank and Punjab National Bank and at the instance of the banks the winding up proceedings were initiated and the previous vendor company was permitted to sell the lands in question and as a consequence of which the lands was purchased by petitioners herein. Learned Senior Counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to Annexure-B, which is an order of conversion dated 08.09.1972 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division, where reference is made to an earlier order passed in Official Memorandum bearing No.B.Dis.Aln.SR 661/67-68 dated 27.04.1968 when the lands in question were earlier converted for industrial purpose.
4. Learned Senior Counsel would also hasten to add that survey number found in Annexure-B dated 08.09.1972 is Sy.No.52 of Nimbekaipura Village, measuring 9 acres and 15 guntas. Further attention of this Court is drawn to the absolute sale deed dated -5- NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 05.10.1972 at Annexure-C executed by Smt. Leelavathamma in favour of M/s. Loharu Steel Industries (PVT) Limited, wherein it is clearly stated that the old Sy.No.52 was re-numbered as Sy.Nos.80 and 81. Be that as it may, learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the impugned order at Annexure-K passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the competent authority there is no reference to any sale deed in the impugned order.
Moreover, the respondent in the impugned order is Sri Lalchand Goyal, who has been arrayed as respondent No.4 herein. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it cannot be said that the proceedings have been initiated in respect of the sale deed dated 05.10.1972 since Section 79A and 79B were not in the statute book as on the date when the sale deed was executed. It is submitted that Sections 79A and 79B were brought into force with effect from 01.03.1974. The next sale deed which was executed by the M/s. Loharu Steel Industries Limited, was in the year 2001 and 2003. However, in the impugned order it can be seen that the proceedings were initiated in LRF (83) -6- NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 47/1995-96, in the year 1995-96. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that without there being any reference to any sale deed the impugned order has been passed in respect of Sy.No.11 and 52 measuring 13 acres and 17 guntas, which has got nothing to do with the lands in question. Moreover, having regard to the fact that after the sale deed dated 05.10.1972 the lands were subsequently transferred in the year 2001 and therefore there was no occasion for the Assistant Commissioner to have proceeded in respect of any of the sale deeds previously executed in respect of the land in question. Nevertheless, the petitioners are aggrieved of the fact that by virtue of the subsequent mutation order passed at Annexure-L in M.R.No.22/2006-07 dated 25.04.2007 the name of the "Government" has been inserted in the land records belonging to the petitioners.
5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that although the petitioners may not be affected in any manner having regard to the fact that the lands in -7- NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 question were converted to agricultural purpose at the first instance in the year 1968 on 27.04.1968 and thereafter 08.09.1972 and the lands having been alienated, there can be no relevance to such continuation of the revenue entries , nevertheless by virtue of the impugned orders the respondent Tahasildar is trying to cause difficulties for the petitioner company on the premise that lands belong to the Government.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate however seeks to submit that if the petitioners are not in any way harmed by the impugned orders, there was no occasion for them to challenge the same before this Court. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that admittedly the impugned order has been passed against one Sri Lalchand Goyal, who is respondent No.4 herein and if the petitioners have nothing to do with the said Lalchand Goyal, they cannot question an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner against the 4th respondent herein. Learned Additional Government Advocate would -8- NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 also seek to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Krishna Lagatagere /vs./ The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.20096/2021 dated 01.09.2022, wherein this Court has held that proceedings initiated under Section 79A and 79B against the person cannot be set aside at the instance of a subsequent purchaser.
7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent State and the Assistant Commissioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the impugned orders have been passed by the Assistant Commissioner against the 4th respondent herein, at any rate the proceedings and the order should not affect the rights of the petitioner in any manner. It is seen that in the impugned order reference is made to Sy.Nos.11 and 52 measuring 13 acres and 17 guntas of Nimbekaipura. On the other hand, the land purchased by the petitioners is in Sy.Nos.80 and 81. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel in the mutation order at Annexure-L, the name of government has been entered in respect of Sy.No.80 and 81/1 belonging to the petitioners. That is the reason why the petitioners are before this Court.
8. It is clear from the facts narrated herein above that having regard to the title of the land in question, prior to the insertion of Section 79A and 79B in the statute book by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.10.1972 Smt. Leelavathamma sold the land in favor of the M/s.Loharu Steel Industries (PVT) Limited. Therefore there cannot be any invocation of the provisions contained in Section 79A and 79B in respect of the said sale deed. The next sale deeds are dated 12.12.2001 and 10.11.2003. It should be noticed that the petitioners purchased converted lands and therefore violation of Sections 79A and 79B cannot be alleged or attracted. However proceedings were initiated by the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1995-96 and there is no mention of any sale deeds in the impugned
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 order. The impugned order was passed on 23.10.2001 Therefore it can be easily concluded the proceedings were not initiated either in respect of the sale deed dated 05.10.1972 or the subsequent sale deed dated 12.12.2001 and/or 10.11.2003 That being the position, the impugned order should not in any manner affect the rights of the petitioner. Nevertheless, since the respondent - Tahasildar appears to be of the opinion that mutation entry has been made in terms of M.R.No.22/2006-07 showing the name of the government in the land records and is therefore trying to put pressure on the petitioner, it is made clear that the mutation entry in MR No.22/2006- 07 shall not in any way affect the land in question belonging to the petitioner who purchased the lands in pursuance of the sale deed dated 12.12.2001 and 10.11.2003. The Tahasildar is once again required to verify from the records and find out if there were any other land purchased by the 4th respondent and if the Assistant Commissioner had proceeded against the 4th respondent in respect of any sale deeds. Then appropriate
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 correction will have to be made in the land records while deleting the mutation entry at Annexure-L dated 25.04.2007 in respect of the Sy.Nos.80 and 81/1 in all measuring 4 acres and 8 guntas.
9. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. It is hereby declared that the impugned order dated 23.10.2001 at Annexure-K passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-division in proceedings bearing No.LRF (83) 47:95-96, wherein the 4th respondent herein is arrayed as the respondent, shall not affect the lands belonging to the petitioners namely Sy.Nos.80 and 81/1 in all measuring 4 acres 28 guntas.
10. The mutation entry in MR No.22/2006-07 at Annexure-L passed by the Tahasildar on 25.04.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside insofar as Sy.Nos.80 and 81/1 is concerned. The Tahasildar is hereby directed to remove the name of the "Government" from the land records in respect of the said survey numbers and restore the same as it was prior to the impugned order dated
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7973 WP No. 6103 of 2024 25.04.2007 passed by the Tahasidlar. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
11. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY CT: JL