Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Late Mohammed Yusuf son of Haji Mohammed Ismail Sab purchased an extent of 13 acres 6 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.103/1 situated at Kapnur Village in Gulbarga Taluk from one Ganpat Rao son of Bhujang Rao Ganeshkar under a registered Sale Deed dated 31.03.1986.

2. Proceedings were initiated against him by the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, alleging that late Mohammed Yusuf had illegally purchased the agricultural land though he was not an agriculturist and therefore violated the provisions contained in Section 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). Late Mohammed Yusuf appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and contested the case contending interalia that his mother Rehman Bi, wife of Haji Mohammed Ismail Sab was an agriculturist. He further contended that he had purchased the property as the President of Roja House Building Co-operative Society Limited.

4. This order was challenged by the legal representatives of Mohammed Yusuf by filing an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the appeal. In the circumstances, aggrieved by both these orders, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.M.Chandrashekar appearing for the petitioners contends that the entire proceedings conducted before the Assistant Commissioner are vitiated as late Mohammed Yusuf was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to establish that he was the son of Rehman Bi and that the said Rehman Bi was an agriculturist during the relevant period 1973-74 and therefore there was no disability for him to purchase agricultural lands. It is his further submission that the Assistant Commissioner seriously erred in passing the impugned order as he had earlier come to the conclusion, based on the material on record vide his order dated 22.12.2001 that there was no violation of Section 79B of the Act by late Mohammed Yusuf, hence, he could not have initiated fresh proceedings having once held that Section 79B was not violated by Mohammed Yusuf in purchasing the land in question. It is his further submission that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has failed to record any positive finding with regard to the alleged illegality committed by Mohammed Yusuf and also with regard to the status of Mohammed Yusuf being the son of Rehman Bi.

10. It is thus apparent that the Appellate Tribunal has adopted a totally wrong approach in holding that unless Mohammed Yusuf established in the Civil Court that he was the son of Rehman Bi, his assertion in that regard could not be accepted and the order of the Assistant Commissioner had to be confirmed. The question whether Mohammed Yusuf was the son of Rehman Bi and was therefore an agriculturist as his mother possessed agricultural land during the relevant period is the matter that was required to be examined by the Assistant Commissioner. It was for Mohammed Yusuf to establish the same by leading evidence. But, as already adverted to above, he was not provided an opportunity to lead evidence, nor there is any positive finding in that regard. Therefore, in my considered view, both the authorities have erred in recording a finding that there was violation of Section 79B of the Act. The matter therefore requires fresh consideration.

11. Insofar as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner having once recorded a finding that there was no violation of Section 79B of the Act, was not competent to again proceed with the matter afresh as he had become functus officio, it has to be noticed that this contention is taken up by the petitioners only in this writ petition. The impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are silent in this regard. If there is any such material to establish that the Assistant Commissioner had once passed such an order and therefore he was not entitled to proceed afresh in the matter, it would be open for the petitioners to urge the same in accordance with the law.