Smt. Swarupa Ravishankar V. The Assistant Commissioner Kollegal Sub-Division and The Tahasildar Gundlupet Taluk

WP/17133/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Smt. Swarupa Ravishankar challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner, which alleged a violation of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act concerning a portion of agricultural land she purchased. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were initiated only against one portion of the land purchased under a single sale deed, and she had provided sufficient evidence of her non-agricultural income, which was not considered by the authorities. The state contended that the petitioner failed to produce necessary income tax returns, thus justifying the proceedings. The court found that the authorities did not adequately substantiate the allegations of violation and that the proceedings were selectively applied, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798918 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Karnataka Land Reforms Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVAS AGA
• Assessee Lawyers: BOREGOWDA ADVOCATE
• Keywords: Income Tax; Land Reforms; Non-agricultural income; Revenue records; Writ petition
• Section: 79(A); 79(b)

Judgement Text

"W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17133 OF 2021(LR) BETWEEN: SMT SWARUPA RAVISHANKAR W/O LATE K RAVISHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT H NO.232,15TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS ROAD, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070. PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.D10, JAIN HEIGHTS, ALTURA, NO.65/1B, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, KAIKONDARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560035 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.BOREGOWDA, H.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL SUB-DIVISION KOLLEGAL – 574 140. 2. THE TAHASILDAR GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 111. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS.A.R, AGA ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 03.12.2019 PASSED BY R-1 IN L.R.F (79A AND B) CR 109/2018-19 WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.87/3 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 01 ACRE 18 GUNTAS SITUATED AT HOREYALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE-G. W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 2 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 in LRF (79 A & B) CR 109/18-19 with respect of the land bearing Survey No.87/3 measuring to an extent of 01 acre 18 guntas situated at Horeyala Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, vide Annexure-G. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to restore or enter the name of Petitioner with respect of land bearing survey No.87/3 measuring to an extent of 01 acre 18 guntas situated at Horeyala Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar District. c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. The Petitioner is said to have purchased agricultural land measuring 2 acres 36 guntas in Sy. No. 87/3 in two portions, 01 acre 18 guntas from one Sri. Madanaika and another portion of 01 acre 18 guntas from Sri. Ninga Naika, situated at Horeyala village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 3 District, under a common sale deed dated 14.06.2010. 3. When the Petitioner approached the authorities for issuance of katha in her name, proceedings in case No. LRF 127/2011-12 were initiated against her alleging that there is a violation of Section 79(A) and (B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, ‘KLR Act’) in respect of the land measuring 01 acre 18 guntas purchased from Ninga Naika. Pertinently there was no proceedings initiated in respect of the land measuring 01 acre 18 guntas purchased from Mada Naika. 4. In view thereof, the Petitioner has filed an affidavit placing her income from non-agricultural sources from the year 2005-06 to 2009-10. Despite the same, the impugned order came to be passed stating that, since the Petitioner has not placed on record the income tax returns in Saral Form and the Petitioner’s contentions were not believable there is violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) and (B) W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 4 of the KLR Act. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner is before this Court. 5. The contentions of Sri. Bore Gowda, learned counsel for the Petitioner are that: 5.1. The Petitioner is not an Income-tax assessee and therefore, she has not filed any Income- tax returns and as such she is unable to produce any Income-tax Returns in Saral Form or otherwise; 5.2. The proceedings have been initiated only as regards a portion of the property purchased under the very same sale deed, establishes mala fides on the part of the authorities concerned; 5.3. The affidavit, which had been filed detailing- out the non-agricultural income of the Petitioner, has not been considered in the impugned order. W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 5 5.4. There is no basis for initiation of said proceedings against the Petitioner in as much as neither in the notice nor in the order, the authority has come to a conclusion that the Petitioner’s income is more than that prescribed under Section 79 of the KLR Act, for the said authority to initiate such proceedings. 5.5. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petition is required to be allowed and the order dated 03.12.2019 has to be quashed, and a mandamus issued directing the authorities to restore the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records. 6. Per contra, Sri. A.R. Srinivas, the learned Additional Government Advocate (for short, ‘AGA’) appearing for the respondent-State submits that, it was the duty on the part of the Petitioner to produce the income tax returns in Saral Form and the same W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 6 having not been produced and only an affidavit having been produced, the same could not have been considered by the 1st respondent and therefore, considering the submission made, the 1st respondent-Assistant Commissioner has rightly rejected the Petitioner’s representation and come to the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) and (B) of the KLR Act. 7. Heard Sri. Bore Gowda, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri. A.R. Sreenivas, the learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State and perusal of papers, the question that would arise for consideration is,- “Whether the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent - Assistant Commissioner under Section 79(A) & (B) of the KLR Act is without any basis since the notice is issued without any cause being shown as regards the alleged violation committed by the petitioner and could the 1st Respondent insist on production of income tax returns in Saral Format?” W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 7 8. As regards the alleged violation of provisions of Section 79(A) & (B) of the KLR Act, in the present case, the show-cause notice does not reflect any cause for the issuance of show-cause notice, there is no particular allegation made which are required to be answered by a person who receives show-cause notice, except to contend that there is a violation of the above provisions. 9. There being no particular allegations made as regards the income of the Petitioner being in excess of that prescribed under Section 79(A) and (B) of the Act, merely stating that there is violation of the provisions of Section 79(A) & (B) of the Act, would not suffice. The addressee of a show-cause notice is required to know as to what is the cause that he has to answer, without the cause being stated in sufficient detail, the same would only be an empty formality, which can not be replied. W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 8 10. The Petitioner has produced an affidavit dated 13.03.2020 indicating the income of the Petitioner for the year 2005-06 to 2009-10, which has been executed before and authenticated by the Tahsildar. The specific contention of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is not an income-tax assessee, and therefore, she is unable to produce Saral Form as directed by the 1st respondent. 11. In my considered opinion, when a person pleads that a particular document is not available, such person cannot be forced to produce a nonexistent document. The 1st respondent being Government Authority, could have ascertained about the Income- Tax returns, if any, filed by the Petitioner from the Income-tax Department, and on that basis, determine the veracity of the statement made by the Petitioner. 12. When it is contended by the Petitioner that she is not an Income-tax Assessee, it is for the State to W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 9 establish that the person is indeed an income tax assessee and the earning of the Petitioner was more than that prescribed, which would raise a presumption of a violation of Section 79(A) & (B) of the KLR Act, then the burden would have shifted to the Petitioner. 13. The initial burden having not been discharged by the authorities, the question of Petitioner proving that she is not an Income-tax Assessee, which is a negative fact, does not arise. 14. Be that as it may. Even a perusal of the sale deed dated 14.06.2010 indicates that the total consideration paid for the entire extent of 2 acre 36 guntas of land is Rs.1,60,000/-. Thus, in respect of the land measuring 01 acre 18 guntas, as regards which the proceedings have been initiated, the consideration would have been only Rs.80,000/-. 15. The same is also not in excess of the income prescribed under Section 79(A) of the KLR Act to raise any presumption of violation, as the said sum W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 10 of Rs.80,000/- is below the prescribed income in the year 2010 of Rs.2,00,000/- pa., and as such, the authority could not have initiated any proceedings, without categorically stating the reason for doing so. 16. Furthermore, it is rather shocking that the authorities have initiated proceedings only in respect of one portion of the land and not as regards the subject matter of the entire sale deed. Even though the entire contents of the sale deed were available before the respondent-authorities. 17. This does not inspire confidence, infact I’am of the considered opinion that the same is a malafide exercise of power. It can never be said that there is violation of the provisions of Section 79 (A) & (B) in respect of a portion of land covered under the sale deed and there is no violation with regard to the remaining land. W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 11 18. There is complete non-application of mind in issuance of show-cause notice and passing the impugned order. 19. In view thereof, 19.1. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 in LRF No.(79A & 79B) CR.109/2018-19 is hereby quashed. 19.2. A mandamus is issued directing the 2nd respondent to restore the name of the Petitioner as owner of the property in revenue records as regards Sy. No.87/3 measuring 01 acre 18 guntas situated at Horeyala Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. W.P. NO.17133 OF 2021 12 20. Respondent No.2 will act on a print out of the uploaded copy of this order on the website of this Court, if so furnished by the Petitioner, without waiting for certified copy thereof. If respondent No- 2 has any doubt about the order, respondent No.2 may verify the contents of the order from the website of this Court and or from the learned AGA. 21. With the above observation, the petition is allowed. Sd/- JUDGE KGR* "