-- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF NOVEMBER. 20 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 3.5. PA:rfL 1' "7 "' W.P.No.33600/20,10 (1-R) M " ~ K D' BETWEEN: Chandraraj, S/o Chinnaswamy. Aged about 44 years, R/o.No.30, Ramagondanahgiiii Kodi, Whitefieid, BaI1gaiore~56O 066. (By Sri Brijesh P_a:i1;,: Adv.j;' AND: D 1. Gover.nmeut'of Ké6:nat'a_i:a. Rep.I::y its SeC1f--etaijz, ' Reveriue DepartIrie.nt,». Vidhanasoudha, ' is Ambedkai*..Veedh1',. . Banga1ore--56Q 001. 2-. 'I'he VAssist'a1f11'. Coriiiiiissioner, . Bangalore Division, :B'8_.I'Ig'a_l:O_IjC;' ' 3. Fi'h__eO'I'a1f} Bai'1gai--ore' North Taluk, Bangalore. '~(i=3y.,sfi~~R.Kumar, HCGP.) **$ is 1 gf. EETITIONER RES?ONDENTS This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of O " " ihe Constitution of india praying to quash the impugned order Wgw dated 12.7.2010 passed by respondent No.2 vide Anne:x:ure~G to
the writ proceedings and all proceedings pursuant thereto and
etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Heari;n–g”‘this
day. the Court made the following:– ._ ._
ORDER 9
1. In this Writ petition. petitioner is::clrallen:gi11g”t1ie
dated 12.07.2010 passed by»; the Assistant T,l.C1om1nissioner,’=op
Bangalore North Division, Bangalore)» in exlerlcisc.”V-oflthelwlpowers
conferred under Section 8l3~…of Land Reforms Act
(for short, ‘the Act’) in for the alleged
violation of the 79A and 79B
read with V
2. He purchased 7 guntas of
land comprise ind’ situated at Ramagondanahalli,
fiobli. Bllan-galore East Taluk, under a registered sale
d*rjieed”d.ate.d’«i0,lt}._l994 from one Muniyarnrna. Ever since the
date of-.purch.a~se’phe is in actual possession and enjoyment of the
9 property. 9eti’Lioner has produced the record of rights pertaining
llthsaéland in question at Annexures–B and (3 to show his
occzivpation and enjoyment right from 1994-95. According to the
‘petitioner. himself and his family owned agricultural lands and
were carrying on agricultural operations as on the appointed
h 3 A44;
dated i.e. 01.03.1974 and also as on the date the land in
question was purchased i.e. 10.10.1994. In fact. there is no
dispute about this as the finding recorded by the.._”A.ss–istant
Commissioner in this regard is in favour of the pet_i’ti.oner–.
that as on the appointed date and also as”‘or1::’_the”‘vd’ate-cot”»
purchase, the petitioner and his, f:3.f11.J’.iy2″>I11’€Iffibeffi”~.__W?i1’e
agriculturists. However, the Assistant Cor.c’niissi.o.ner has’
initiated the proceedings after a cf__16′ the date
of purchase of the propertgribyp the issuing a notice
and calling upon him to show that he was
an agriculturi_st._: ‘fthat to purchase the
property his family was earning.
The initiation of noticed from Annexure–E
notice which__ :_’0.t$:’;0«2′.2010. A perusal of Annexure–E
notice ,disclos’es..:Vthat tlielllldifahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk,
Vtfirishnaraja l>’upram,lVhasv stated that he has noticed that the
lpetitionerwiiad ‘purchased 7 guntas of land of Ramagondanahalli
by xixfaylof a .registe1’ed Sale Deed and hence the petitioner should
produce” certain documents before him on 26.02.2010. The
sought for are I} Particulars to show that as on
petitioner possessed agricultural lands 2)
ufilocurnents obtained from the officials of the Income Tax
fir
W 4 M
Department to show the annual income of the petitioner during
5 years prior to the date of purchase 3} Family income derived by
the petitioner from sources other than the agric–ultu_”ral’*.VA4)
Certificate showing that the petitioner was an
else permission obtained from the_»As_sistantH”CotnIn’issione;¥ ”
under Section 80 of the Act. Petitioner. wasiaglsoii notified xridexthe
said notice that in case he failleciovto produce th’eA~w[pa_.rticulars;.it
action would be taken as per the4_t:uprow’..s_ions’ vvvtiamataka
Land Reforms Act. Pursuant ‘to issued. petitioner
appeared and filed his that he was
an agriculturistp did not possess
income more and was therefore not in
any manner to property.
3. The ‘Assistant “CVommi_ssioner. as already adverted to
above, has found’-»t_hat’the petitioner was an agriculturist as on
date has come to the conclusion that since
produced by the petitioner to show that his
income__wa_s~ the limit prescribed during the 5 years prior
~ .t_o’~irhe dateoi’ purchase, it had to be presumed that the petitioner
it ‘purchased the land in violation of the provisions contained
it Section 79A and 80 of the Act and therefore the land was
lifiple to be forfeited to the State Government. Accordingly, the
_ 5 _
Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order to the
said effect.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits_.v’~tha,t’~».the
initiation of the proceedings by the Assistant
a lapse of 16 years from the date ofhpurchase” try the”.
petitioner is without authority of lawvj»,
that the petitioner was not a11a:%ge«d of possessii1g”i.iicome§ mm;-is.
than what is prescribed as per the”.proyision’s._contained under
Section 79A of the Act and.._there3foreith’e__A,ssistant Commissioner
was not justified inA.proceed.ing’–on the basis’ ‘of-1:ion–production of
the copy of the_retu:}ns_Vfi1ed E-eiore’j_’th_e”incerne Tax Authorities by
drawing adVei’se”iinfer}’-;~nce’ against” ‘the’ “petitioner.
5. Learned Gover:diment1’i’?l’eader who has taken notice for the
respondents 1’subm.i.tS. “the petitioner has an alternative
of an appeal under Section 118(2) of the
1V’ACt.i.h’efoprev..tl”1ev’Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. He further submits
that there iimitation prescribed under the provisions of
Section of’ the Act for initiating action for violation of the
1′ ”.pro\ris’i.onsH’contained under Section 79A. 79B and Section 80 of
6. Section 83 of the Act reads as under:
“83. Inquiry regarding illegal transaction.
prescribed authority shall, after a
inquiry, determine whether the transalctiaii *’
reported to it under Section 82 or
notice in any other manner i’smiln”cnni.raVentio_n
{or is unlawful or invalid und«er}?’th’eV if
this Act, [as they stood -b_eforer.r,_)r” as they;
after the date of corrimencernenti of the
Amendment Act]… and””‘ a ‘declaration
accordingly. Any”‘transactiloi1lsopdeclared to be in
contravention of {orv:is._unla’yvful=Vor~:l.iii.\}’alid under}
any of tlie.._p’rovisions.:l,.of they stood
before” ‘or after the date of
comrnencefnent lof.~ Arneniéjrnent Act} shall be
null andvlvoidni.I{The’~land in respect of which such
place shall, as penalty. be
forfeited .tollanciyest:..in the State Government {free
_.§lf’1-om all”‘encumbrances.} No amount is payable
V’ th”ere’for.]”
79A of the Act enacts a prohibition for
purcliase of. by a person whose aggregate income of
hi-mself ariydithe members of the family from sources other than
élglriculltttral is more than Rs.2,00,000/– for a period of 5
./ficonsecutive years preceding the date of purchase. Section 79133
tS prohibition of holding agricultural land by a person who
BAAJA 7 LALAL
is not an agriculturist. In the instant case, the question
presented is regarding the violation of Section 79A of the Act.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance the
judgments of the Apex Court in the case
Foundation 8: Others Vs. Union of India”& SC it b
852}. State of Gujarat Vs. Patel
1959 so 1297). Ram Chand Vs. of Aihndiat [(i992;}f1~VVsc:c 441 V S’
and also on an unreported judgm.exn’t._oi’.._pthe hlfiivisionii Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.86éi3’/l99t~’}on 09.02.1998 in
the case of M/s.4_ASaroj bf Kamataka &
Another. submits a of any period of
limitation power for resuming and
forfeiting land the provisions contained under
Section 79A Act,VtheV.s’uo motu powers are required to be
. gxercigsed the authorities under Section 83 of the Act within a
V’reas:o’nab£e ti.meg.SAccording to him, as the power is exercised. in
therinstant’«Vc’ase’,;;.VVafter a lapse of 16 years from the date of
purchase ”–made by the petitioner, the same cannot be
‘characterised as reasonable exercise of powers within a
.’_reasonable period and therefore the very initiation of proceedings
gig:-“‘vitiated as the action was barred due to lapse of time.
A-#4 8 _
9. Learned Government Pleader justifies the initiation of
action stating that no period of limitation is prescribed under
Section 83 of the Act.
10. On careful consideration of the materialstori i’eoord
the ruling relied upon by the learnedicounsel for It i
find that it is a well establishedgprinclipletthat
revision or suo Inotu power llofiinitiativrig is
conferred on an authorityi theggcsaidppv-.povv.er exercised
within a reasonable time? lliiveliA.l.les.tablished principle
that if for any prevented from
exercising such a time, it must assign
reasons vihy:vlthe”–req;l1ired action in accordance
with and how the authorities were
prevented either be’ca’us:e’ of the misrepresentation or fraud
.-‘..¢OmIr1i;:tedkA.by the person. concerned against whom the action is
lfinitiategd ..VAw=hich”~–.prevented the authorities from taking such
ac1′:i’o’n.,’ ‘V
‘pi i. In lthehinstant case, it is not in dispute that the action is
lisonght tollbe initiated after a lapse of 16 years from the date of
The land in question is 7 gnntas purchased in the
fyear 1994. Neither in the notice issued to the petitioner, nor in
VUVVVVV 9 _
the impugned order, there is any allegation made against the
petitioner of having suppressed any material fact or_.o_f not
disclosing his income. The Tahsildar calls upon the petit–io’ne’i’.,Ato
produce certain documents having kept quiet for_.A’1i3
the date of registered Sale Deed. The _’.”£7ahsildar.lis”
of the documents pertaining to the revenue e~rVeco’r_d’s of
It is not as if the name of the petitioner was not in the!’
revenue records after the registere_cl’:ASaie_VDeed eiéecuted in
his favour in the year is Tahsildar, who
is required to effect the mutation in the petitioner after
the sale deed the mutation based
on the registered back in the year 1995.
Having kept assigning any reason, the
present proceedings._.«a–r¢.ll to be initiated. The action
therefore thellaugtliohrities initiating such a proceeding after
delay cannot be characterised as
reasci1able:’le>;e’i’ciseof powers within a reasonable time.
12. A ‘—‘1_’hev_j~uc1gi’nents relied upon by the learned counsel for the
” petitioner’ precisely on the point. In fact, the Division Bench
Court in W.A.No.8643./ 1996 while dealing with a similar
,…Hrn.gtter pertaining to violation of Section 798 of the Act, after
ing to the judgments of the Apex Court, has held that
__ __
inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating the proceedings would
render the initiation of the proceedings illegal. In theinstant
case, the proceedings are initiated after a lapse of
Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner
unreasonable action on the part of the respondent-‘authoriti.es=in V’ »
initiating the proceedings is well foun}:led:.’_”sI~r¥.ien1ce,the pe.ti–tioner
is entitled to succeed in this Writ’ it _ C
13. The arguments advanced the le~a_rne–c’£ Government
Pleader that the petitionergjjrnust _’he”gas’1teclVp’vt’o.’availthe alternative
remedy cannot be entertained :the«._:lvverylb__’authority of the
Assistant Commissioner =i_::1 gin.i~tia’tingf_”th¢_gjproceedings after a
lapse of 1.6″ quelstien. this writ petition. in the
light of the “to supra and the judgment
rendered byllthe Division “i3ench of this Court, I find that it is
__._unneces~sary for It the____petitioner to go before the Karnataka
A”App:ellate as it is prima facie clear that the initiation of
‘?g1’ri:eif,’a ‘lapse of 16 years is impermissible in the facts
and circurnstarices of the case.
,._Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order
_l p_as.se’d”by the Assistant Commissioner is set aside, so also the
, u of’
._ _
proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 83 of the
Act shall stand quashed.
15. Learned Government Pleader is permitted toe.~§i.1’e_&»Q’f
appearance within three weeks from today.
PKS