DR C P SIDDASHRAMA V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

WP/30424/2009

AI Insights

Dr. C.P. Siddashrama, a professor at Mysore University, challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which forfeited his lands under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that his income, which was above Rs. 2 lakhs at the time of purchasing new land, should not disqualify him from owning agricultural land, especially in light of a subsequent amendment raising the income limit to Rs. 25 lakhs. The court, referencing Supreme Court precedents, held that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively without leading to absurdity, thus affirming the original decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693824 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Vijayakumar vs. Shankarayya Sardar, Shamrao V. Parulekar vs. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay, Shri Ram Narain vs. The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: T S MAHANTESH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANGAMESH
• Keywords: Agricultural Land; Income limit; Retrospective amendment; Land forfeiture; Karnataka Appellate Tribunal
• Section: 79A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH W.P.NO.30424/2009(LR-RES) BETWEEN: DR. C.P. SIDDASHRAMA S/O P.M. SIDDASHRAMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 249, 20TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR 3RD STAGE, ‘B’ BLOCK MYSORE OCC: PROF. MYSORE UNIVERSITY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R.B. ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE. 3. THE TAHSILDAR DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS 2 (BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6.5.2009 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 7.9.2009 IN APPEAL NO.542/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-B ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner claims to be the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.159/2 to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas and Sy.No.163/2 to an extent of 3 acres namely, in all 6 acres 20 guntas in his native village. He sold the said lands as well as a site in Mysore. Through the proceeds, he purchased an agricultural land to an extent of 2 acres in Sy.No.208/1P1 of Avaragere village, Kasaba Hobli, 3 Davanagere Taluk. That he also sold certain properties in Hullambi village, Davanagere Taluk on 25.10.2007 to mobilize resource for buying the land in question. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner is, in order to buy 2 acres of land he sold the land to an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas. The Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the power conferred under Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), forfeited the lands of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, wherein the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for the grounds on which Section 79A of the Act was invoked as his income was far above Rs.2 lakhs as on the date of purchase of land. 4 3. The purchase of the land was on 23.10.2007. The income tax returns for the previous three years is as follows: 2004-2005 Rs. 2,61,392/- 2004-2006 Rs. 3,28,079/- 2007-2008 Rs. 4,82,450/- As on the relevant date the income limit for a person or a family shall not be less than Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than agricultural lands. The records would indicate the petitioner’s income is beyond Rs.2 lakhs on the relevant date. The order of the Assistant Commissioner is just and appropriate. Hence, I do not find ground to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner as confirmed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 4. The further contention advanced by the learned counsel is with reference to the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1993 Kar 2586 (Vijayakumar 5 Shankarayya Sardar vs. State of Karnataka) with reference to Paragraph-11. Therefore, he contends that, an amendment has been brought about enhancing the financial limit from Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs by Act 33 of 2015 with effect from 30.08.2015 and in view of the aforesaid judgment, the amendment relates back to the date of amendment namely 01.03.1974. 5. I have considered the judgment in detail. The reference in paragraph-11 is based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 324 (Shamrao V. Parulekar and Others vs. District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and Others) and AIR 1956 SC 614 (Shri Ram Narain vs. The Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.,). The Supreme Court while considering the said judgments referred to the manner in which a statute has to be considered and held that the amendment would have to be considered as if they were on the relevant date on which it was 6 promulgated except in situations where the same would be retrospective, inconsistent or absurd. That the amendment would have to be read as if they were part of the original Act itself. 6. I’am of the considered view that even if the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would have to pass the test of inconsistency or absurdity. The financial limit fixed by the Act was a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which is subsequently enhanced to Rs.25 lakhs. If the amendment is relatable to 01.03.1974, the same would lead to absurdity. Transactions entered into between 01.03.1974 till date would have to be reopened and reconsidered with effect to the latest amendment enhancing the financial limit to Rs.25 lakhs, which leads to absurdity. Considering the amendment with retrospective effect would lead to an absurdity. Therefore, a financial limit would necessarily be 7 prospective and can never be retrospective. Therefore, even following the judgment of this Court as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the interpretation sought to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would lead to absurdity. Therefore, such a contention cannot be accepted. 6. Even otherwise, the amendment is with effect from 30.8.2015. It is applicable to the petitioner. Hence on this ground also the petition requires to be rejected. 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The writ petition is rejected. Rule discharged. SD/- JUDGE TL "