Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Based on the report Annexure-E, the 2 n d petitioner issued the notice Annexure 'F' dated 25 t h July 2016 to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for the violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and the lands should not be confiscated to the State.

6 W. P .N o .2 0 5 4 1 o f 2 0 1 7

7. In reply to Annexure-F the respondents appeared before the 2 n d petitioner and submitted their detailed objections. They mainly contended that the properties in question are not the lands as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act and therefore, Sections 79A and 79B of the Act or the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act do not apply to them. Hence, they sought dropping of the proceedings.

(x) THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS. WEST COAST PETROLEUM AGENCY AND OTHERS:
MANU/KE/0290/2012 Reg: Application of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act:
14 W. P .N o .2 0 5 4 1 o f 2 0 1 7
15. The prime question in the matter is whether the lands in question attract Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act?
16. The relevant portions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act read as follows:

26. The above referred records show that the lands in question were used for non agricultural purpose. Thus, they are not covered under the definition of land under S.2(18) of the Act.

27. The Judgments of the Supreme Court in Shankara Textiles Mills' case and Kunhambu's case referred to supra fully govern the matter in issue in this case. In Shankara Textiles Mills' case, the land owner / Company itself had declared the lands in question as agricultural land and claimed exemption from the provisions of Sections 79B and 109 of the Act. Therefore it was held therein that S.79A applies.

31. As already pointed out, the records show that at least from 1982, the land is being used for non- agricultural purposes. Since 1982, the petitioners have not initiated any action under the relevant Watan's Abolition Act for the alleged violation of the conditions of the grant. Grant order does not provide for forfeiture of land for violation of condition No.4.

32. For the alleged violation of the conditions of the grant, the petitioners cannot invoke Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Under law, when an act has to be performed in accordance with certain statute or procedure, the statutory authority has to proceed only in accordance with the said statute/procedure. Therefore the contention of the learned Advocate General that for violation of the conditions of the grant, the 2nd petitioner has justifiably initiated action under Sections 79A and 79B deserves no merit at all.