IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 31st day of July, 2017 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P S DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.1859 of 2016 and WRIT APPEAL Nos.4994-95 of 2016 (LR) BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-560 009 ... APPELLANTS (BY SHRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI.B.M.UPENDRA KUMAR S/O.SRI.B.N.MANJUNATHA RAO AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST CUM CINE ARTIST No.7,1ST CROSS, VI BLOCK III STAGE, BANASHANKARI BANGALORE-560 085 ...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.VIVEK HOLLA, ADVOCATE SHRI.S.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN IA No.3/16) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION Nos.37347- 349/2009 DATED 28/3/16.
THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T These writ appeals are by the State Government challenging the common order dated March 28, 2016 passed in the writ petitions No.37347-37349/2009.
2. The writ petitioner-respondent had purchased a piece of agricultural land measuring 17 acres 10 guntas on March 18, 2005. Based on a report of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (‘the Act’ for short) and ordered for forfeiture of the land in question by the order dated June 26, 2009.
The writ petitioner, challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, in an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘KAT’), which was dismissed on November 3, 2009. Feeling aggrieved, he filed the instant writ petitions, which have been allowed by the impugned order.
3. Heard Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate for the appellants and Mr.Uday Holla, learned senior advocate for the respondent.
4. Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate arguing in support of the appeals, mainly urged two grounds. Firstly, that the property in question was indeed purchased by the writ petitioner in his individual capacity, although, it was contended before the Assistant Commissioner that the writ petitioner was only a name lender. The individual income of the petitioner was in excess of the permissible limit of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner did not call for any interference. Secondly, that mere delay in initiation of proceedings cannot frustrate the action initiated by the State administration. With these submissions, he prayed for allowing these writ appeals.
5. Mr.Uday Holla, learned senior advocate, argued in support of the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
6. Incontrovertible facts are, the writ petitioner purchased the land in question on March 18, 2005. His name was entered in the revenue records on July 20, 2005. The Assistant Commissioner has issued an endorsement dated March 10, 2006, stating that, no cases were registered under the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act. After his name was entered in the revenue records, writ petitioner started developing the land by availing a loan of Rs.35,00,000/- from the bank.
7. With regard to the first contention urged by Mr. Srinidhi, it is relevant that the Assistant Commissioner has not accepted writ petitioner’s stand, that he is a name lender. But, at the same time, the Assistant Commissioner, having recorded the individual income of writ petitioner for the financial years 2005-06 and 2006-07, as `1,25,260/- and `1,22,380/- respectively, which are within the permissible limit of `2,00,000/-, has ordered for forfeiture of the land. Hence, on facts, the reasons recorded by the Assistant Commissioner are perverse.
8. So far as the second contention with regard to delay is concerned, admittedly, the proceedings were initiated after a lapse of nearly two years after the date of purchase. As rightly held by the Hon’ble Single Judge, all relevant documents were before the revenue authority, when an application was submitted by the writ petitioner for change of revenue entries. Further, the Assistant Commissioner has also issued an endorsement stating that no cases were pending under Section 79A and 79B of the Act. Therefore, the authorities shall be estopped from turning around and taking a contrary stand.
9. Hence, on both counts, these appeals must fail and, are, accordingly dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the appeals, all the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, dismissed.
11. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Yn.
Sd/- JUDGE