Smt. Shantawwa W/o Chandragouda Patil V. The Assistant Commissioner, Sub Division Bailhongal, Dist: Belagavi and Smt. Mangala W/o Babu Dhammannagi

WA/100006/2016

AI Insights

The case involves a dispute over the sale of 6 acres of agricultural land in Bailhongal Village, where the appellant, Smt. Shantawwa, challenged the legality of the sale to respondent No.2, Smt. Mangala, under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the sale violated Sections 79A and 79B of the Act, as respondent No.2 was not an agriculturist and had not met the conditions set for purchasing agricultural land. The Assistant Commissioner initially dismissed the appellant's complaint, and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, citing lack of locus standi. However, the High Court found procedural flaws in the Assistant Commissioner's enquiry and remanded the case for a thorough investigation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799086 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C S PATIL; R M KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: V M SHEELVANT
• Keywords: Agricultural Land; Forfeiture; Land Reforms; Locus standi; Sale deed; Writ Appeal
• Section: 79A; 79B

Judgement Text

": 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI A N D THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.100006/2016 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT.SHANTAWWA W/O CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:PATIL GALLI, TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI. ...APPELLANT (BY SHRI V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) A N D : 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB DIVISION BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI. 2. SMT.MANGALA W/O BABU DHAMMANAGI, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O:BASAVA NAGAR, MURGOD ROAD, BAILHONGAL, TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI C.S.PATIL, GA FOR R1, SHRI R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) : 2 : THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.No.101525/2015. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the learned Single Judge’s order, dated 14.10.2015 passed in W.P.No.101525/2015. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that some members of the appellant’s joint family executed the sale deed in respect of the land measuring 6 acres at R.S.No.536/3 and 536/4 of Bailhongal Village in favour of the respondent No.2 on 17.11.2005. The appellant filed the petition with the first respondent Assistant Commissioner on 27.06.2011 complaining of the violations of certain provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘the said Act’ for short) in the said sale transaction. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order, dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure-K) turned down the appellant’s petition by holding that there are no violations of provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the said Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant : 3 : filed Appeal No.454/2012 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘K.A.T.’ for short). The K.A.T. rejected the said appeal holding that it is not maintainable as the appellant has no locus standi to file the appeal. 3. Shri V.M.Sheelvant, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.2 has not produced any documents to show that she is not prohibited from purchasing the agricultural land. She has not produced the income tax returns. She has not produced any document to show that she is an agriculturist. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner suo motu holds that her annual income is below Rs.2 lakhs. 4. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 has spent Rs.20 crores on constructing the building on the land in question in 2010. He wonders as to how somebody, whose income is less than Rs.2 lakhs a year, can construct such a massive building. 5. He also submits that the Assistant Commissioner has not held any preliminary or summary enquiry. The Assistant Commissioner has not even maintained the ordersheet, as is evident from his letter, : 4 : dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure-H). Nextly, the order dated 31.08.2005 (Annexure-C) permitting the respondent No.2 to purchase the lands in question is with the condition that she has to cultivate the land for five years; if she uses it for any other purpose, the land will be forfeited to the Government. Because of the violation of the said condition, the land is liable to be forfeited to the Government, so submits the learned counsel. 6. Shri C.S.Patil, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent Assistant Commissioner fairly submits that the Assistant Commissioner’s order is not sustainable and that consequently the K.A.T.’s order is also not supportable. 7. Shri R.M.Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the appellant’s complaint was liable to be dismissed on the short ground of delay and laches, because the sale deed is executed in the year 2005 and the complaint is filed six years thereafter in 2011. He submits that O.S.No.22/1981 for partition amongst the members of the appellant’s family is pending consideration. He submits that the complaints and counter : 5 : complaints are also filed. He submits that the respondent No.2 did not have the opportunity to produce the additional documents before the K.A.T. and before the learned Single Judge, as the appeal and writ petition were dismissed at the admission stage itself. 8. He submits that the appellant has also executed ‘Kabuli Patra’ (consent deed) for the execution of the sale deed, dated 17.11.2005. 9. The submissions of the learned counsel have received our thoughtful consideration. We are in agreement with the K.A.T.’s view that dispute between the appellant and of the respondent No.2 is of civil nature and that therefore if the appellant proposes to agitate her right, title, interest over the property, she has to do so only by filing an appropriate civil suit in a competent civil court. 10. But the question which cannot be glossed over is whether the Assistant Commissioner has held the enquiry into the allegation that the respondent No.2 is prohibited from holding the agricultural land? Nothing is placed on the record of the Assistant Commissioner to show that the respondent No.2 has the eligibility to buy the agricultural land or that she does not suffer from any : 6 : prohibition for buying the agricultural land. We do not see any impediment for the Assistant Commissioner to receive any inputs from anybody including the erstwhile owners of the land in the matter of violations of the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the said Act. On the ground that some disputes are pending amongst the members of the appellant’s family or between the appellant and the respondent No.2, the violations of law cannot be wished away. The Assistant Commissioner does not appear to have conducted any fact-finding enquiry. His letter, dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure-H) states that there is no order sheet in the enquiry. It is hard to believe that the enquiry is conducted and completed without maintaining the order sheet. The appellant alleges that the respondent No.2 has violated condition No.2 of the permission order, dated 31.08.2005 (Annexure-C). The respondent No.1 is also required to hold the enquiry and satisfy himself that no conditions of the permission order are violated. If he finds that they are violated, then he is obliged to take action against the respondent No.2. For all the aforesaid reasons, we quash both the Assistant : 7 : Commissioner’s order, dated 10.01.2012 (Annexure-K) and the K.A.T.’s order, dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure-L). The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on whether the respondent No.2 has committed any violation of any provision of the Land Reforms Act. All the contentions are left open to be urged before the Assistant Commissioner. It shall also be open to the parties to place the necessary documentary evidence on the record of the Assistant Commissioner in the remanded matter. 11. It is also made clear that the appellant’s rights, if any, in the property in question are to be agitated only in a duly constituted suit. Whatever be the outcome of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant is not entitled to the restoration of the land. If the Assistant Commissioner finds that the respondent No.2 was prohibited from purchasing the agricultural land and/or that she has violated any conditions of the permission order, the Assistant : 8 : Commissioner has to take the consequential action in accordance with law. 12. To safeguard the interest of the respondent No.2 during the period of interregnum that is between today and the date of disposal of the remanded matter, we direct that the status quo in possession and use of the land in question be maintained till the Assistant Commissioner passes the order. 13. Before we part company with this case, we deem it necessary to place on record our full appreciation of the principled stand taken by the Government Advocate, Sri C.S. Patil. No order as to costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Jm/hnm "