before the hon’ble mr.justice b.s -...
Post on 24-Feb-2021
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.19997-19998/2013 C/W. W.P.No.42727/2013 (SC-ST)
IN W.P.Nos.19997-19998/2013
BETWEEN
1. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE ONARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOIBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 032.
2. SRI SHIVAPAL, S/O M. KALASAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.232, 5TH MAIN, C.B.I. ROAD, GANGANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 032. ... PETITIONERS
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DT.7.5.2013)
(By Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri MANIKAPPA PATIL & Sri CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVS.FOR P2, Sri PRAKASH, ADV. FOR P1) AND
1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH DIVISION, V.V.TOWERS, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.
2
2. SRI.V.RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.V.VARADARAJU, R/AT NO.155/A, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
3. SRI.JADHVA.G.NAGARAVALA
MAJOR, KADIGOANALI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 157.
4. SRI KISHORE NARGAWAL,
R/OF 159/27, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE CITY. ... RESPONDENTS (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DT.29.8.2013)
(By Sri.S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2, Dr.E.R.DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1)
IN W.P.No.42727/2013
BETWEEN
SRI SHIVAPAL, S/O M. KALASAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.232, 5TH MAIN, C.B.I. ROAD, GANGANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 032. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri PRAVEEN RAIKOTE, ADV.) AND
1. SRI.V.RAMAPRASAD,
S/O LATE SRI.V.VARADARAJU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.155/A, 9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,
3
SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.
2. SRI KISHORE NAGARWAL,
S/O LATE JADHAV NAGARWAL R/OF 159/27, 3RD MAIN ROAD, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE CITY.
3. SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT KADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOIBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 032.
4. SRI.JADHVAJI NAGARAWALA S/O KUWAJI NAGARAWALA MAJOR, No.159/24, III MAIN, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE – 560 003.
5. PRAKASH BABU
FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER MAJOR, NO.544, CMH ROAD I PHASE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 08.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE 09.
7. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560001. … RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR Sri R.C.NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2, Dr.E.R.DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1)
WRIT PETITION NOS.19997-98/2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.26.4.2013 ON I.A.NO.X IN APPEAL NO.980/2009 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
4
TRIBUNAL (REV) BANGALORE AS AT ANNX-M AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
WRIT PETITION NO.42727/2013 FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.06.08.2013 IN APPEAL NO.K.SC/ST(A) 40/11-12 AND K.SC/ST(A)13/11-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
12.08.2015, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. These writ petitions arise between the same parties.
The land involved in these writ petitions is the same. Writ
Petition No.42727/2013 arises out of an order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru,
under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Land) Act, 1978
(for short, ‘the PTCL Act’) whereas, Writ Petition
Nos.19997-98/2013 arises out of the proceedings initiated
under Section 79-A and Section 80 of the Land Reforms
Act, culminating in the order passed by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘KAT’).
2. W.P.No.42727/2013 is filed by one Mr.Shivapal
challenging the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the
5
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru,
thereby allowing the separate appeals filed by Sri
V.Ramaprasad and Sri Kishore Nagarwal under Section 5A
of the PTCL Act thereby setting aside the order dated
11.07.2015 of the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru
North Sub-Division, Bengaluru.
3. The Assistant Commissioner had ordered for
resumption and restoration of 2 acres of land comprised in
Sy.No.30 situated in Kadiganahalli Village, Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk on the ground that the
land was a granted land and was sold without prior
permission on 20.07.1976 in favour of one Sri Jadhavji
Nagarwal and therefore, there was violation of provisions of
the PTCL Act. The said order was passed on an
application filed by one Smt.Gowramma against Sri
Prakash Babu as respondent.
4. Against this order of the Assistant Commissioner,
SC.ST.(A) No.13/2011-12 was filed by Sri V.Ramaprasad
alleging that the land in Sy.No.30 was an Inam land
6
granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi @ Vaddara Channa
vide order dated 10.05.1958; after his death, his sons
Narayanappa, Gurappa and Papanna sold the land
measuring 1,01,917 sq. ft. out of the total extent of 3 acres
10 guntas in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal vide Sale Deed
dated 20.07.1976 who in turn sold the land in his favour
(Sri V.Ramaprasad) vide Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978. He
urged that the land was not a granted land.
5. He also urged that order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner had been challenged by another purchaser
by name Ramu and the Deputy Commissioner found that
provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable and hence,
set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on
18.10.2006. The said order was challenged in
W.P.No.9888/2007 by the legal representatives of the
grantee and persons claiming under them. This Court by
order dated 09.06.2008 held that the Deputy
Commissioner was not right in deciding the matter as the
appellant before the Deputy Commissioner had sought to
withdraw the appeal and hence, the writ petition was
7
allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set
aside.
6. Sri V.Ramaprasad sought review of the said order
dated 09.06.2008 passed in W.P.No.9888/2007 by filing
R.P.No.93/2010. The said review petition was disposed of
on 10.03.2010 holding that the order of the Assistant
Commissioner was not binding on the appellant as he was
not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant
Commissioner. Liberty was reserved to him to challenge
the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
7. Sri V.Ramaprasad contended before the Deputy
Commissioner that he was in two minds whether to
challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner or not;
however, after securing opinion, as he was advised to seek
a formal declaration that the order of the Assistant
Commissioner was a nullity, he filed SC.ST.(A)13/2011-12
before the Deputy Commissioner. Sri V.Ramaprasad
urged that the alleged sale in favour of Shivpal, writ
8
petitioner, by the legal representative of original grantee on
16.11.2006, was a nullity in the eye of law.
8. Similarly, Kishore Nagarwal filed SC.ST.(A) 40/2011-
12 challenging the very same order of the Assistant
Commissioner urging similar grounds.
9. After hearing both parties, the Deputy Commissioner
has passed an order holding that as the land was an Inam
land in respect whereof occupancy right was conferred in
favour of Kitchana Bovi @ Narayana Bovi and was
registered as an occupant and khatedar, it could not be
construed as a granted land under Section 3(1)(b) of the
PTCL Act, as provisions of the PTCL Act were not
applicable. The Deputy Commissioner has further found
that the land was alienated for the first time vide Sale
Deed dated 20.07.1976 in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal
after 15 years from the date of grant made on 15.09.1958.
The Deputy Commissioner found that under the Mysore
(Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 there
was no non-alienation condition in respect of the lands for
9
which occupancy right had been confirmed. However,
under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, once occupancy
right was confirmed in favour of a tenant, such land shall
not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of
grant. The Deputy Commissioner has placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in the case of M.MUNIKENCHAPPA
Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE & OTHERS – 2004(3) KAR.L.J. 579 to hold that
provisions of PTCL Act were inapplicable to cases where
occupancy right had been granted in recognition of
preexisting right and such lands could not be treated as
granted lands in terms of the provisions contained under
Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner
found that first alienation of the land made in favour of
Jadhavji Nagarwal under Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976
could not be held null and void.
10. It is relevant to notice here that in the meanwhile in
respect of the very land, there was a dispute with regard to
violation of provisions of Section 79-A and 80 of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The said proceedings
10
were initiated against Jadhavji Nagarwal alleging that he
had purchased the land in question in violation of Section
79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Assistant
Commissioner had passed an order dated 24.05.1996
holding that there was such violation and ordered for
forfeiture of the land to the Government. This order was
challenged before KAT in Appeal No.980/2009 by Sri
Ramaprasad. The said appeal was allowed on 26.04.2013
by the KAT by condoning the delay and setting aside the
order dated 24.05.1996 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner.
11. Aggrieved by the said order, the connected
W.P.Nos.19997-19998/2013 has been filed by Gowramma,
legal representative of the grantee. Sri Shivpal has
subsequently filed an application and has come on record
as petitioner No.2 to prosecute the said writ petition.
Therefore, both these writ petitions have been heard
together as they pertain to the same subject matter and
arise between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed
of by this common order.
11
12. I have heard Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ
petitions and Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent – Sri
V.Ramaprasad in both the cases.
13. In W.P.No.42727/2013, the following contentions are
urged by Sri Nanjunda Reddy:
1) As on the date of filing the appeal before the
Deputy Commissioner, neither V.Ramaprasad, nor
Kishore Nagarwal had any locus standi to prefer
an appeal, as by that time, the land had been
ordered to be forfeited to the Government for
violation of provisions contained in Section 79-A of
the Karnataka Land Reforms Act;
2) The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
referring to the judgment of the Full Bench in the
case of MOHAMMED JAFFAR & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT &
OTHERS - ILR 2002 KAR 4693 [2003 (1) K.L.J. 337] is
12
illegal because Mohammed Jaffar’s case dealt with
Section 48 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act,
whereas in the instant case, after the lands were
forfeited to the Government, the land was granted
in favour of Gowramma; though Gowramma had
made an application allegedly under the
provisions of the PTCL Act, it has to be considered
that the land was granted by the Government to
Gowramma under the provisions of the Land
Grant Rules and not by way of restoration of the
granted land under the provisions of the PTCL
Act. In support of this contention, Sri Nanjunda
Reddy points out that if it was a case of
restoration, then the entire extent of 3 acres which
was granted in favour of Kinchana Bhovi should
have been restored and not just 2 acres of land.
14. Insofar as challenge made to the order passed by the
KAT in W.P.Nos.19997-98/2013, Sri Nanjunda Reddy has
contended as follows:
13
1) Sri V.Ramaprasad has played fraud on the KAT
by producing fabricated documents. In this
regard, it is urged that Kishore Nagarwal had
himself filed an appeal against the order of the
Assistant Commissioner. The same was
dismissed for non-prosecution. Therefore, sale
made in favour of V.Ramaprasad was void,
inasmuch as Jadhavji Nagarwal had no
saleable interest in the property;
2) Sri V.Ramaprasad could not have preferred an
appeal independently before the KAT in view of
dismissal of appeal filed by Kishore Nagarwal;
3) that in the appeal filed by Kishore Nagarwal,
Jadhavji Nagarwal was shown to have died
during the year 2005, but in the appeal filed by
Sri V.Ramaprasad in 2009, Sri Jadhavji
Nagarwal was made a party and indeed, one
counsel appeared and filed vakalath for
Jadhavji Nagarwal. Therefore, a dead person
14
has been represented before the KAT. Thus, by
impleading a dead person and without arraying
the writ petitioners as parties before the KAT,
an order was obtained by Sri Ramaprasad;
4) that the KAT grossly erred in not going into the
merits of the matter, but allowing the appeal
solely on the ground that there was inordinate
delay on the part of the Assistant
Commissioner in initiating the proceedings
under Section 79-A & 79-B of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act. He points that at best the
KAT ought to have remanded the matter back
to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh
consideration;
5) that the KAT failed to appreciate that the
appeal filed by Sri V.Ramaprasad was itself
highly belated and deserved to be dismissed
solely on that ground, particularly when the
entries in the revenue records were effected
15
pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner on 24.05.1996, followed by
disposal of the land by way of grant in favour of
Gowramma during the year 2005;
6) that the order passed by the KAT rejecting the
two applications filed by the petitioners to come
on record was erroneous and untenable.
15. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar, learned Senior Counsel
representing the contesting respondent Sri V.Ramaprasad
contends that the entire controversy boils down to the
legality and correctness of the order passed under the
provisions of the PTCL Act by the competent authorities
namely the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner. If the land is held to be a granted land,
then the legal representative of the grantee i.e., Gowramma
would have any right and consequently, the person
claiming under her i.e., Shivapal as purchaser during the
year 2006 could have any locus standi to make any
grievance in these two writ petitions.
16
16. It is in that background, he has first addressed his
arguments in W.P.No.42727/2013. He points out that
admittedly Gowramma had filed application invoking the
provisions of the PTCL Act seeking restoration of land.
She did not make the purchaser from her i.e., either
Jadhavji Nagarwal as per Sale Deed dated 20.07.1976 or
Sri V.Ramaprasad, who in turn purchased from him as per
Sale Deed dated 04.09.1978 as party respondents; she
chose to make one Prakash Babu as respondent though he
was totally unconnected. He also invites the attention of
the Court to the Sale Deed dated 16.11.2006 executed in
favour of Shivapal wherein it is recited that the land was
granted as per the provisions of Inams Abolition Act
recognizing the grantee as a ‘kadim tenant’ and hence, it
was a grant in recognition of the pre-existing right and not
a grant made as per the Land Revenue Act or Rules framed
thereunder. It is, therefore, contended by Sri
S.M.Chandrashekar that the provisions of the PTCL Act
had no application as the land was not a granted land.
17
17. It is his next contention that Shivapal and
Gowramma had filed W.P.No.8579/2013 and
W.P.No.40394/2013 respectively challenging the order of
the Deputy Commissioner. On 23.09.2013, in
W.P.No.40394/2013, this Court passed the following
order:
“…..Whether the lands in question have
been granted to the predecessor in title of the
petitioner under the Land Grant Rules?
No material has been produced by the
petitioner in this regard, nor is there a plea to
that effect in the writ petition…….”
18. Thereafter, the said writ petition was withdrawn on
07.10.2013. The effect of dismissal of this writ petition as
withdrawn as contended by Sri S.M.Chandrashekar is that
neither Gowramma nor Shivapal could assail the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions
of the PTCL Act and Shivapal could not independently
maintain the writ petition when Gowramma had
abandoned her right. Reliance is placed on the judgment
18
in the case of SRI JAGADISH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY &
OTHERS – ILR 2013 KAR 4091 in this regard. Sri
S.M.Chandrashekar has also placed reliance on the Full
Bench decision in the case of Mohammed Jafar referred to
supra. He further points out that during 1958 when the
land was granted, non-alienation period was 15 years and
therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that
there was no violation of non-alienation condition even
assuming that it was to be treated as a granted land.
19. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar is critical of the conduct of
Gowramma in not making Sri Ramaprasad as a party or
his vendor Sri Jadhavji Nagarwal and thereafter, in
withdrawing the writ petition filed although the Court had
prima facie expressed its view and adjourned the case at
the request of Gowramma.
20. As regards the other writ petition in W.P.Nos.19997-
19998/2013, Sri S.M.Chandrashekar contends that
though Shivapal’s application seeking his impleadment
19
before the KAT had been dismissed, he came on record as
a second petitioner in these writ petitions, although the
order passed by the KAT had attained finality. He submits
that as Gowramma has been held not entitled for
restoration of land as per the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, she had no locus standi to challenge the
order passed by the KAT. It is his submission that the
land in question was used for non-agricultural purpose for
stone crushing and Ramaprasad was carrying on stone-
crushing business, therefore, it was not an agricultural
land and hence, the provisions of the Land Reforms Act,
particularly Section 79-A were not applicable.
21. Sri S.M.Chandrashekar urges that whether Jadhavji
Nagarwal had died if so when was not material. It is
submitted that death certificate produced in that regard
was a false document. He further points out that the
Assistant Commissioner who passed an order in a
proceeding initiated under Section 79-A of the Land
Reforms Act did not issue any notice to either Jadhavji
Nagarwal or Ramaprasad, therefore, there was violation of
20
principles of natural justice. He also points out that the
order was passed after 17 years from the date of purchase.
Sri Chandrashekhar relies on the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs.
FATMABAI IBRAHIM – (1997) 6 SCC 71 and the judgment of this
Court in the case of J.RAMA Vs. M.VITTAL BHAT - ILR 2011 KAR
5637 to contend that after such long lapse of time, the sale
could not have been set aside.
22. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and
perused the entire materials on record. Though the facts
narrated by the parties in these two sets of writ petitions
are complex covering several incidents and happenings,
the fact remains that there are two sets of orders passed
by the quasi judicial authorities that have led to filing of
these two sets of writ petitions. One set of proceeding is
initiated under the provisions of PTCL Act and another set
of proceeding has been initiated under the provisions of
Sections 79 & 80 of the Land Reforms Act.
21
23. So far as the proceeding initiated under the PTCL Act
is concerned, the same is initiated at the instance of
Gowramma the legal representative of the grantee, who
has sought for restoration of the granted land in her
favour. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the order
holding that the land was not a granted land as defined
under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act inasmuch as the
grant in favour of the original grantee was in recognition of
his pre-existing right under the provisions of Inams
Abolition Act.
24. So far as the legality or correctness of this order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner is concerned, the
legal question is no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Mohammed Jafar referred to supra has
held that if occupancy rights had been conferred as per the
provisions of the Land Reforms Act in favour of the tenant
in recognition of pre-existing right of the tenant, then such
grant cannot at all fall within the ambit of ‘granted’ land as
defined in Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act. By following the
said decision, in the case of SRI JAGADISH Vs. THE STATE OF
22
KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY & OTHERS – ILR 2013 KAR 4091, a Division Bench of
this Court has held that where a person is enjoying the
land by virtue of a grant made in terms of the provisions of
Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act,
1954 in recognition of his pre-existing right over the land,
such a land cannot be treated as a granted land for the
purpose of PTCL Act.
25. Indeed, in the instant case, as adverted to above, in
the Sale Deed executed by Gowramma in favour of
Shivapal, it is stated that the land was granted recognizing
the rights of the original grantee as a ‘kadim tenant’ under
the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. In fact, the Deputy
Commissioner has also recorded independent findings in
this regard holding that the grant was under the
provisions of Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, in the light of
the judgment of the Full Bench and the Division Bench
referred to supra, the contention urged by Sri
S.M.Chandrashekar that the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner holding that the land was not a granted
23
land and the provisions of the PTCL Act had no application
deserves to be accepted. Indeed, as rightly held by the
Deputy Commissioner even if it was a granted land, as the
land was sold after the expiry of non-alienation period of
15 years, there was no violation of the provisions of the
PTCL Act.
26. It is not open for Gowramma or for that matter
Shivapal, purchaser from her to contend that the grant in
favour of Gowramma was under the provisions of the Land
Revenue Act and the same could not be considered as a
grant under the provisions of the PTCL Act. This is
contrary to the application filed by Gowramma herself
before the Assistant Commissioner wherein she has sought
relief under the provisions of the PTCL Act. There is no
other order of grant. Therefore, such a contention
advanced on behalf of Gowramma and Shivapal cannot be
accepted. Hence, it has to be held that the sale made by
the original grantee in favour of Jadhavji Nagarwal in the
year 1976 was not hit by the provisions of the PTCL Act.
As the Assistant Commissioner had passed the order
24
behind the back of the purchasers from the original
grantee, the Deputy Commissioner was right and justified
in entertaining the appeals filed by Sri Ramaprasad and in
passing the order under challenge. Hence,
W.P.No.42727/2013 filed by Shivapal deserves to be
dismissed.
27. As regards W.P.Nos.19997-98/2013, wherein order
passed by the KAT has been called in question, it has to be
stated that once it is held that the land was not a granted
land and the sale made by the grantee/legal representative
of the grantee was not bad in law, even Gowramma will not
have any right to make any grievance regarding the
proceedings initiated under Section 79-A of Karnataka
Land Reforms Act against the purchaser from her which
has culminated in the K.A.T. order. Whether there is
violation of any of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act
is a matter between the State and the purchaser of the
land. Neither Gowramma, nor Shivapal-purchaser of the
very land in the year 2006 from her will have any locus
standi to make any grievance.
25
28. As rightly held by the KAT, proceedings under
Section 79-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act had been
initiated after 17 years from the date of purchase by
Jadhavji Nagarwal. The Assistant Commissioner passed
the order against Jadhavji Nagarwal on 24.05.1996.
Although the property had been purchased by
Ramaprasad in the year 1978, Ramaprasad was not made
a party. Therefore, the order insofar as Ramaprasad was
concerned has to be treated as one passed without
following the principles of natural justice.
29. Even as regards Jadhavji Nagarwal who was arrayed
as a party before the Assistant Commissioner, there is
nothing to show that notice was served on him. The
Assistant Commissioner proceeded on the basis that
though notice was issued, he did not appear, hence, notice
was affixed on a conspicuous place. Whether the notice
issued to him was served on him and which was the
conspicuous place where notice was affixed is not
mentioned in the order. Thus, an exparte order was
26
passed holding that no material had been produced by
Jadhavji Nagarwal to show that his annual income from
non-agricultural sources was less than `12,000/- and
therefore, it had to be held that he had violated the
provisions of Section 79-A and B of the Karnataka Land
Reforms Act while purchasing the property and hence the
land was liable to be forfeited to the State. This order
cannot be regarded as legally sustainable. The KAT has
rightly set aside the same.
30. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.778/2011 and connected cases disposed of on
24.06.2011 in some what similar circumstances at
paragraph 23, it was too late in the day for the concerned
authority namely the Assistant Commissioner to allege
that the purchase made by Jadhavji Nagarwal in the year
1976 was unauthorized, by initiating proceedings during
the year 1995-96 after a lapse of 17 years, that too when
Jadhavji Nagarwal himself had parted with the land in
favour of Ramaprasad in the year 1978. The authorities
cannot prejudice the rights of the subsequent purchaser
27
namely Ramaprasad who has enjoyed the land for nearly
15 years after purchasing the same. If the authorities did
not discharge their obligation sincerely within the time,
they had no legal basis to examine the validity of purchase
made by Jadhavji Nagarwal way back in the year 1976,
that too when valid and legal rights came to be vested in a
third party V.Ramaprasad.
31. Even though limitation is not provided for initiating
action under Section 79-A of the Land Reforms Act, the
general rule is that proceedings have to be initiated within
a reasonable period and reasonable period could be a
period of one or two years and not 17 years. This Court in
the case of J.RAMA Vs. M.VITTAL BHAT - ILR 2011 KAR 5637 has
held so by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs. FATMABAI
IBRAHIM – (1997) 6 SCC 71. In the said case, the Apex Court
has observed as under :
‘Where no time-limit is prescribed for
exercise of power under a Statute, it does not
mean that it could be exercised at any time.’
28
32. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the
petitioners in both the cases stating that a dead person
was impleaded before the KAT has no relevance to the
controversy, as the lis was between Ramaprasad and the
State. The presence of Jadhavji Nagarwal in the
proceedings initiated before the KAT was of no
consequences.
33. In the result and for the foregoing, both the writ
petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE
PKS
top related