Sri Deyanda N Pemmiah V. The Assistant Commissioner Mysore Division and The Tahsildar Virajpet, Mysore Taluk

WP/49262/2013

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Deyanda N Pemmiah, the petitioner, who purchased agricultural land and faced the annulment of the sale by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Division. The annulment was based on the alleged violation of Sections 79-A, 79-B, and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, which pertain to the ownership and income criteria for agricultural landholders. The petitioner contested the annulment, arguing that he had provided all necessary documentation proving his compliance with the Act, including an income certificate showing his family\'s income was below Rs. 1,80,000/-. The court found that the first respondent had not adequately considered this evidence, leading to the quashing of the annulment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799275 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Land Reforms Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VENKATESH DODDERI
• Assessee Lawyers: G S KANNUR
• Keywords: Agricultural Land; Land sale; Writ petition; Income Certificate; Cancellation of Sale
• Section: 80; 226; 79(A); 83; 227; 79(b)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM WRIT PETITION NO.49262/2013 (LR – RES) BETWEEN: SRI DEYANDA N PEMMAIAH S/O.NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS BALYAMUNDOOR VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.KANNUR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE – 570 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR VIRAJPET, MYSORE TALUK MYSORE – 571 218. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2013 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE – C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 2 O R D E R The petitioner, purchaser of agrarian land is in writ action seeking to quash the order dated 16.1.2013 passed by the first respondent cancelling the sale in his favour in respect of 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Kallurnaganahalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk. 2. Heard regarding preliminary hearing. Learned Government Advocate Sri Venkatesh Dodderi takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. As the issue falls in narrow compass, it is heard on merit as well. 3. From the contextual facts, it is seen the petitioner claims to have purchased 1 acre 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.483/4 situate in Kallurnaganahalli village, Ilawala Hobli, Mysore Taluk on 12.11.2010 vide Deed of Sale registered as document No.I- 14052/2010-11. Thereafter, the first respondent issued notice to him under Section 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 3 30.1.2012 calling upon him to produce certain documents which include, i) proof regarding holding of agricultural land prior to 1.4.1974 with genealogical table. ii) Endorsement to show the income of the petitioner’s family for the past five years. iii) Income returns for the past five years if he is an assessee. iv) Consideration amount paid under the Deed of Sale. 4. The petitioner claims to have made available all the information sought for by the first respondent vide Annexure ‘A’. The petitioner’s grievance is despite reply to notice issued under Section 83 of the Act wherein, he has categorically stated that there is no violation of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 of the said Act as he is an agriculturist belonging to an agricultural family and is also not an income tax assessee, the respondent has failed to consider it. He claims to have produced a certificate from the Tahsildar proving that 4 the income from all sources of his family is not more than Rs.1,80,000/-. His objection to the notice Annexure ‘A’ is at Annexure ‘B’. 5. It is thus alleged that the first respondent, ignoring the material facts, and material documents and attending circumstances, has erroneously held his income to be more than Rs.1,80,000/- resulting in passing of the impugned order at Annexure ‘C’, annulling the sale transaction. 6. The petitioner, thus seeks quashing of the order on the ground that it is unsustainable, as being against the facts and realities; that his valid sale transaction has been annulled unjustifiably even though the petitioner has proved there is no contravention or violation of Sections 79-A and B of the Act. 7. Learned Government Advocate would draw my attention to the last paragraph of the impugned order wherein there is a categorical recording of the 5 first respondent about the petitioner’s failure to produce the relevant records. 8. Be that as it may. Annexure ‘C’ shows first respondent has formed opinion that the petitioner has not produced the relevant records to substantiate his income was less than Rs.1,80,000/- without any material supporting such conclusions. 9. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Income Tax Certificate issued to him which was produced by the petitioner before first respondent the Assistant Commissioner. It clearly shows the petitioner is declared to be having income of less than Rs.1,80,000/-. Such material document has been ignored by the respondent resulting in erroneous conclusions. Since the impugned order appears to be based only on the presumption that petitioner has income of more than Rs.1,80,000/- and it is shown to be against the material on record, it cannot be sustained. 6 10. Considering material proposition in the writ petition, the material documents made available and particularly the copy of the income certificate, I am satisfied the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of rule nisi. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure ‘C’ is quashed. The case is remanded to the first respondent directing him to permit the petitioner to produce once again the income certificate to substantiate he has income of less than Rs.1,80,000/- as contended and further to give opportunity to the petitioner to urge such as a ground, as a proposed action by giving full opportunity. The petition is thus disposed of in terms of this order. Rule is made absolute. Sd/- JUDGE nas. "