Sri G Prabhakar V. The Assistant Commissioner Bangalore South Sub Division and The Thasildar Bangalore South Taluk

WP/15537/2013

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner, Sri G Prabhakar, who challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which annulled his purchase of agricultural land. The authorities contended that the petitioner violated Sections 79-A and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, by allegedly having an assured annual income of not less than Rs. 2 lakhs from non-agricultural sources, which disqualified him from purchasing agricultural land. The petitioner argued that his income was solely from agricultural sources and below the stipulated limit. The court, after reviewing the income tax returns and other evidence, concluded that the authorities had erred in their assumptions and allowed the writ petition, thereby restoring the petitioner's title to the land.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690128 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B P RUPA
• Assessee Lawyers: M R RAJAGOPAL; H N BASAVARAJU
• Keywords: Agricultural Land; Title Acquisition; Violation of KLR Act; Income from non-agricultural sources
• Section: 80; 79(A)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA W.P. No. 15537 OF 2013 *(LR-RES) BETWEEN SRI G PRABHAKAR S/O LATE HOBLESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.496, 17TH CROSS 4TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE-76 ... PETITIONER (By Sri : M R RAJAGOPAL, ADV. & MR. H N BASAVARAJU, ADV.) AND 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUT SUB DIVISION BANGALORE-560011 2. THE THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT-560011 ... RESPONDENTS (By Smt : B.P.RUPA, AGA) *** THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R1 DATED 30.3.05 AS PER ANNX-N AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE KAT DATED 30.1.13 IN APPEAL NO.924/07 VIDE ANNX-R AND DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER * Corrected vide chamber order dated 10-12-2014 2 ACQUIRED THE TITLE TO AN AGRICULTURAL LAND WITHOUT SUFFERED ANY IMPEDIMENT U/S 79 A OF THE KLR ACT, ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Petitioner has assailed order dated 30.03.2005 passed in Proceedings No. LRF(83) BE/40/04-05 (Annexure-N to writ petition) as well as order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brievity) dated 30.01.2013 in Appeal No.924/2007 (Annexure-R to writ petition). 2. The facts in a nut shell are that petitioner is an agriculturist having several extents of land. He purchased 31 guntas of land in Sy. No. 26/1 of Kodi Chikkanahalli Village, Bangalore South Taluk under registered sale deed dated 04.08.2004. Subsequently, respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, Bangalore issued notice dated 16.11.2004 to the petitioner stating that there is violation of Section 79-A and 80 of 3 Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) and thereby directed the petitioner to furnish an explanation. Petitioner submitted his reply to the notice. Not being satisfied with the reply proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. By order dated 30.03.2005, respondent No.1 held that petitioner had violated Sections 79-A & 80 of the Act and therefore, annulled the transaction, under which the petitioner had purchased the land in question. Being aggrieved by that an appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 30.01.2013 has dismissed the appeal. Both the order and judgment are assailed in this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and also perused the material on record. 4. During the course of submissions learned counsel for petitioner drew my attention to Section 79-A and 80 of the Act and contended that the petitioner is an 4 agriculturist as he has several extents of lands in his name, which are detailed in Annexure-C to the writ petition and further his source of income from non-agricultural sources is less then Rs.2 lakhs per annum. Therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of the Act when he purchased the land in question. But the authorities have doubted this fact and have not appreciated the matter in its right perspective, in as much as, they have wondered as to how the petitioner could purchase the land in question for Rs.13,95,000/- having only agricultural income which is evident from the Income Tax returns. He contended that there is no violation of Section 79-A or 80 of the Act as he has no income above Rs.Two lakhs from non-agricultural sources. He urged that the impugned orders may be quashed and writ petition be allowed. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the impugned orders and further contended that the Income Tax returns do not reflect the amount that has been spent by the petitioner for the purchase of lands in question and 5 therefore, the authorities were justified in presuming that the petitioner had sources of income other than agricultural income and there is no material produced in that regard. 6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the material on record it is noted that petitioner had purchased land in question from one Munishamappa and Krishnappa for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.13,95,000/-. The lands in question measures 31 guntas and it is at Kodichikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. From Annexure-E, which shows particulars of land which are possessed by the petitioner, it is noted that he is in possession of Sy. No. 133, 132/3/1, 77/1/3, 138, 135/4, 135/5, 134/3 and 135/7 measuring various extents of land. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner is an agriculturist is established. 7. Section 79-A of the Act states that ‘no person who or a family or a joint family which has an assured annual income of not less than Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than agricultural lands shall be entitled to acquire any 6 land whether as land owner, landlord, tenant or mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one capacity and partly in another.’ The words ‘assured annual income of not less than Rs.2 lakhs from sources other than agricultural lands’ are significant. 8. In the instant case, petitioner has stated that he has no avocation other than agriculture, he is not in any public or private employment, he is not engaged in any private business. Also the income tax returns reflect that his source of income is only from agriculture. Income Tax returns are at Annexure-G, H and K in respect of which he does not have to pay income tax under Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusal of those returns, it is noted that the source of income is from agriculture only. In fact, on account of that fact, he is not required to pay any income tax under the aforesaid Act. Those documents were produced before the authorities. But despite noting those documents the authorities have presumed that the petitioner has income from non-agricultural source, which is over and above Rs.2 lakhs per annum. There is no basis for 7 that presumption as there is no material, which has been placed by the respondent – authorities to establish that fact. Possibly the petitioner had sufficient source of income from agriculture or savings therefrom or he would have borrowed the amount for purchase of the land, that is not a matter for investigation by the revenue authorities. Having regard to the material that has been placed on record, the authorities ought to have quashed the proceedings and not interfered with the alienation. 9. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs. Sd/- JUDGE VK "