Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

15. The following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 have proved that the agreement dated 05.02.2010 is forged and concocted?

(ii) Whether the agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 is hit by Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961?

(iii) Whether the contention that the agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 is hit by Section 79B of the Act of 1961 does survive for consideration, as Section 79B is omitted by way of amendment vide Act No.56 of 2020?

19. Effect of Section 79B of the Act of 1961 on the agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 and consequence of amendment vide Act No.56 of 2020:

Section 79B (1) (b) (iii) of the Act of 1961 barred the purchase of agricultural land by persons who are not the members of the same family. On the date of agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010, Section 79B was in force. The defendants contend that the agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiffs, who admittedly are not the members of the same family, is hit by Section 79B (1) (b) (iii) of the

22. Admittedly, Section 79B of the Act of 1961 is omitted in 2020 by way of an amendment. Thus, the restrictions imposed under Section 79B to acquire

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7022-DB agricultural land are done away with. However, the question is, what is the effect of Act No.56 of 2020 on the agreements entered into before the amendment? The answer lies in sub-section 2 of Section (1) of Act No.56 of 2020. Sub-section 2 of Section (1) of Act No.56 of 2020 speaks about the effective date of amendment. As per the said provision, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of Act No.56 of 2020 have come into effect from 1st March 1974. Section 5 of Act No.56 of 2020 has omitted Section 79B with effect from 1st March 1974. Section 79B of the Act of 1961 was introduced vide amendment with effect from 1st March 1974. Since the said provision is omitted with effect from 1st March 1974, subject to any savings provided in Section 12 of Act No.56 of 2020, the Act of 1961 is to be read as if the Section 79B never existed.

25. Admittedly, no case is filed alleging violation of Section 79B of the Act of 1961 challenging the agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010. The defendants' contention that the agreement is hit by Section 79B is rejected by the Trial

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7022-DB Court, even before Act No.56 of 2020. Had there been an order by the competent authority holding that the agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 is hit by Section 79B of the Act of 1961 and if the said order had attained finality before the commencement of Act No.56 of 2020, then it is not open to the plaintiffs to contend that Section 79B has no application to the case on hand. However, that is not the case here. Hence, Section 12 of Act No.56 of 2020 does not come to the aid of the defendants. Thus, as Section 79B was omitted with effect from 1st March 1974 and no orders are passed on alleged violation under the Act of 1961, this Court has to take a view that Section 79B was not in the statute when the agreement for sale dated 05.02.2010 was entered into among the parties. Savings provided in Section 12(1) of Act No.56 of 2020 would apply only where the orders passed under Section 79B had attained finality when the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) came into force. Hence, this Court is of the view that the agreement for sale dated