Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOs.23942-23943/2019 (LR) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. SRIDHAR MAIYA @ SRIDHAR S/O LATE VENKATAPPA MAIYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2 . SMT. A.V. MALINI SRI. SRIDHAR MAIYA @ SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.14 1ST A CROSS, 1ST STAGE BEML LAYOUT, KAMALANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 079.
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION RAMANAGAR – 571 511.
3 . THE TAHASILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 571 511.
...PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED:22.02.2017 VIDE ANNX-B WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED:16.04.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNTAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.594 OF 2017 VIDE ANNX-C AND DROP THE PROCEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-2 U/W 79A AND B OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT 1961 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE W.P.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. S.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondents-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who are husband and wife have purchased land measuring 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.42/2 (old No.42) and 42/1 (old No.42) measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situated at Dasarahalli Village, Kootagal Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District, under registered sale deed dated 20.08.2015 – Annexure-A. On the premise that there is violation of Sections 79A and 79B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), third respondent forwarded a report and based on said report second respondent initiated proceedings in LRF:79(A)(B)/RA/93/2015-16 by issuing notice to petitioners.
3. On service of notice petitioners appeared and filed documents in support of their stand namely they had income of less than Rs.25,00,000/- and they were agriculturists by profession. Thus, based on the said documents second respondent passed an order dated 22.02.2017-Annexure-B holding that petitioners have violated Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and ordered for forfeiture of land in favour of Government. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal came to be preferred in Appeal No.594/2017 before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
4. By reiterating their stand taken before Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner, income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2014-15 came to be filed before the Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal after noticing income of petitioners for aforesaid years held that for the Assessment Year 2015-16 has not been furnished, but what has submitted is only for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11, which would be of no relevance for adjudicating the issue in question. Hence, on the ground that appellants have not submitted the income tax returns of first appellant for the Assessment Year 2015-16, an adverse inference has been drawn against appellants and thereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner by order dated 16.04.2019-Annexure-C. Hence, these writ petitions.
5. Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent- authorities would vehemently contend that there is no irregularity or illegality committed by the authorities calling for interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is noticed that Sri.S.Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners is justified and correct in contending that income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 relating to first appellant produced at Annexure-D would clearly indicate that gross income of first appellant was Rs.4,66,660/- and as such transaction of sale relating to sale deed dated 20.08.2015 cannot be found fault with nor it cannot be held that petitioners had violated conditions prescribed under Section 79A of the Act. A plain reading of explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 79A would clearly indicate that If the income of a person or a family or a joint family having assured income of not less than rupees twenty five lakhs from sources other than agricultural land shall be entitled to acquire the agricultural land. In other words, if the assured annual income during a period of five (5) consecutive years preceding the date of purchase does not exceed rupees twenty five lakhs, prohibition contained under Section 79-A would not be attracted. The words “rupees twenty five lakhs” occurring in sub-section 79-A of the Act has been substituted for the words “rupees two lakhs” by Act 33 of 2015 with effect from 13.08.2015. Sale deed in question is dated 20.08.2015 i.e., having come into existence after the amendment and thereby amended provision would be applicable. In other words, the upper limit of rupees twenty five lakhs fixed under Section 79-A(1) would be applicable to the sale transaction in question.
7. In the light of income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 also indicating the income of first appellant was less than Rs.25,00,000/- and for the assessment years 2014-15, 2013-14, 2012-13 and 2011-12 was Rs.11,11,988, Rs.5,17,289/-, Rs.2,79,799/- and Rs.3,13,814/- respectively. Thus, the average assured annual income of the petitioner never went beyond the aforesaid figures or in other words, it was less than Rs.25,00,000/-. Hence, impugned order cannot stand the test of law. In fact, Appellate Tribunal only on the ground that income tax returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 having not been produced by petitioners has dismissed the appeal.
In the light of this income tax returns for the said assessment year now being available on record as Annexure-D, which also reflects the income of first petitioner being less than Rs.25,00,000/-, restriction imposed under Section 79A of the Act is not attracted to the transaction of sale in question.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
Next >