Karnataka High Court
Sri R Sathyanarayana Raju vs The Assistant Commissioner on 6 July, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.Nos.30545-546/2009( KLR-CON)
BETWEEN:
1 SRI R SATHYANARAYANA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMA SUBBA RAJU
R/O AT NO.65, "BRINDAVAN" 2ND FLOOR
SANJEEVINI NAGAR,
SAHAKARA NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 092
2 SRI S.NANDAGOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE KODANDARAME REDDY
R/AT NO.65, "BRINDAVAN", 2ND FLOOR,
SANJEEVINI NAGAR,
SAHAKARA NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE - 560 092. ..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE
2 STATE BY TAHSILDHAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
11.08.2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.215/2005 i.e.,
ANNEXURE-A AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS AS PRAYED FOR AND
ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR
SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DATED 02.07.2004 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.K.Suman, learned appearing for petitioners and Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondents. Perused the records. 3
2. Petitioners who claim to be agriculturists purchased land in Sy.No.26 of Gullabonahalli Village Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk to an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas under registered sale deed dated 30.06.94. At the time of registration necessary records as required under Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder declaring that petitioners are owning land in Andhra Pradesh as on the appointed date namely 01.03.74 was also filed. Thereafter revenue authorities mutated the name of the petitioners in respect of land purchased by them by carrying out necessary phodi and durasti work and assigned the land in question as Sy.No.26/1. Subsequently the land in question was also converted from agricultural to non agricultural/residential purpose as per the order of Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in BDIS/ALN(D).SR.41/1994-95 DATED 05.01.1995. In 4 the year 2003 first respondent initiated proceedings against petitioners under Sections 79A and 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and called upon the petitioners to produce documents to demonstrate that they are entitled to purchase the agricultural lands and they were agriculturists as on the date of purchase of land in question. Petitioners appeared and produced the necessary documents. First respondent however rejected their claim without holding enquiry according to the petitioner by passing an order on 02.07.2004 in LRF.SR.323/2003-04 Annexure-D. Being aggrieved by this order petitioner filed appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in appeal No.215/2005 and same also came to be dismissed by affirming the order of Assistant Commissioner on the ground that petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that they are agriculturalists and satisfy the criteria prescribed under section 79A of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. It is 5 this order of the Tribunal dated 11.08.2009 which is impugned in the present writ petitions.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioners that at the outset the proceedings initiated by first respondent was after a unreasonable period i.e., 9 years after the date of purchase of land by petitioners and when the statue does not prescribe the time limit, said power has to be exercised within a reasonable time and authorities cannot wake up after long lapse of time and at their will initiate proceedings. In support of this proposition he relies upon the unreported judgment of Division Bench passed in W.A.8643/96 dated 09.02.98. He would elaborate his submission by contending that the very same Assistant Commissioner had held in LRF(83)24/95-96 disposed of on 26.06.95 that petitioners are entitled to purchase the agricultural lands and had dropped the proceedings 6 initiated against petitioner by order dated 26.06.95 Annexure-C which related to the land purchased by the very same petitioners in Sy.No.17/2 to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas of Kadiganahalli village and as such he contends that order of Assistant Commissioner dated 02.07.2004 as affirmed by Tribunal on 11.08.2009 cannot be sustained. He would further contend even otherwise on merits petitioners had produced holding certificate dated 02.11.94 issued by competent revenue authorities of Andhra Pradesh which reflected that first petitioner was possessing the land in Sy.No.56/3 to an extent of 1 acre 8 guntas at Gurumkonda Village, ozili mandal, Andhra Pradesh and he was an agriculturist and as such he contends that order passed by first respondent as affirmed by Tribunal holding that petitioner is not an agriculturist is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP 7 Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh supporting the orders passed by first respondent as well as the Tribunal would contend that Tribunal has rightly come to a conclusion that even the land possessed by petitioners at Andhra Pradesh was got converted to non residential purpose immediately after purchase and as such finding of the Tribunal that petitioners are not agriculturists by profession and they are disentitled to possess the land requires to be affirmed and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by first respondent as well as Tribunal it is noticed that petitioner had also purchased land in Sy.No.17/2 to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas (which is not the subject matter of these writ petitions). In view of the same first respondent had initiated proceedings against the 8 petitioners in LRF (83) 24/95-96 and as such they appeared before first respondent and produced all the documents to substantiate their claim that they were agriculturists by profession and income was less than the prescribed limit of 2,00,000/- and established the fact that they possessed agricultural lands in Andhra Pradesh as on the date they purchased these lands. Accepting the contentions of appellant that they are agriculturists, first respondent held that petitioners are entitled to purchase the said land and as such dropped the proceedings initiated against them by order dated 26.06.95. Around same time i.e., on 30.06.94 or just prior to that petitioner purchased yet another extent of land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.26 as referred to hereinabove on account of which the present proceedings in LRF.SR.323/2003-04 came to be initiated against the petitioners. Petitioners have appeared before the first respondent filed all the 9 documents including the order passed by very same first respondent on 26.06.95 to contend that they are agriculturists by profession and bar prescribed under section 79A would not be applicable to them and as such they sought for dropping of the proceedings. At this juncture it would be relevant to note the fact that at the time of registration of sale deed itself petitioners have filed necessary declaration in prescribed form declaring that they are agriculturists by profession and in the relevant column they have also declared the lands held by them namely Sy.No.224 of Kelasakandaya, Gunturu Taluk, Nellur Taluk is to an extent of 9 acres 46 guntas apart from other records produced. The proceedings in question was admittedly initiated after lapse of nine years against petitioners by first respondent. No doubt under section 79A and 80 there is no time limit prescribed for initiating proceedings or taking action under section 79B against petitioners. In 10 the instant case land in question was purchased in the year 1994 i.e., 30.06.94. Proceedings for violation of Section 79A and Section 80 came to be initiated in the year 2003 i.e., after 9 years. Under similar circumstances Division Bench of this court while examining issue of delay has held in W.A.8643/96 disposed of on 09.02.98 as under:
"4. There is no dispute in this case that the land was purchased by a registered sale deed dated 6-1-1980 by the appellant and the action under section 79(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is initiated in the year 1991. Admittedly this is more than 10 years after. No limitation is prescribed for exercising the power for resumption of the land. Where there is violation of section 79(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and where there is no limitation prescribed, revisional powers or suo moto powers has to be exercised within a reasonable time. In this case admittedly the power being exercised after ten years, it cannot be said that the power is exercised within the reasonable time. In AIR 1969 SC 1297 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the suo moto power under the Bombay Revenue Code has laid down that suo moto revisional power has to be exercised within a reasonable time 11 which means not more than few months. The said judgment has been followed in AIR 1993 SC 852. Later the Hon'ble Supreme Court again in 1994 SCC 44 has confirmed the same. Again in 1997(6) SCC 71 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no limitation prescribed for exercising revisional suo moto power, the same are to be exercised within a reasonable time and that will not exceed more than one year.
5. In view of the above stated judgments, it has been concluded by the catena of judgments of the Apex Court that for exercising of suo moto powers, the authority has to exercise within a reasonable time which is not more than one year. In the present case, the land has been purchased on 6-1-1980 whereas the action is initiated in the year 1991 after ten years and therefore, the power is not exercised within a reasonable time. On that ground itself, the writ appeal is liable to allowed. In view of that, we do not want to dwell on the other merits urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant".
6. The proposition enunciated by Division Bench would squarely apply to the facts on hand in all fours to the present case in as much as first respondent has initiated proceedings after lapse of nine years which 12 cannot be construed as within reasonable time. On that ground itself order of first respondent dated 02.07.2004 Annexure-D cannot be sustained.
7. Yet another factor which requires to be noticed by this court is the fact that very same first respondent had initiated proceedings against the very same petitioners for violation of section 79A and 79B in respect of another bit of land purchased by them namely in Sy.No.17/2 to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas in LRF (83)24/95-96 and proceedings against the petitioners came to be dropped by order dated 26.06.95. Hence, two yardsticks cannot be applied in respect of the very same petitioners relating to two proceedings and same is impermissible particularly when the period is of the same year. Merely because the petitioners have converted these lands subsequently would not be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that petitioners are not 13 agriculturists or there is violation of section 79A and as such the finding of the Tribunal that on account of petitioners having got converted the land in question to non agricultural purpose cannot be construed as a ground to reject the claim of petitioners that they are agriculturists. In that view of the matter the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
In the result following order is passed:
ORDER
1. Writ petitions are hereby allowed. Rule made Absolute.
2. Order dated 02.07.2004 in LRF.SR.323.2003-04 Annexure-D is hereby quashed.
3. Order passed by Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in appeal No.215/2005 dated 11.08.2009 Annexure-14
A is also quashed.
4. No costs.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN