Back
2003 Supreme(Kar) 173
Karnataka High Court
State of Karnataka - Appellant
Versus
Revenue Department - Respondent
Decided On : 02-20-03
W.A. : 4214 of 2000
CHANDRASHEKAR RODNAVAR, VIGNESHWAR SHASTRY
The intrinsic nature of poultry farming activity qualifies it as an agricultural activity, irrespective of the scale.
Headnote:
Agricultural Activity - Poultry Farming - The court held that irrespective of the scale, the intrinsic nature of poultry farming activity falls within the ambit of farming, and therefore, it qualifies as an agricultural activity.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, engaged in poultry farming on a large scale, was asked to pay conversion charges, penalty, etc. as the Assistant Commissioner insisted that the activity would come within the ambit of non-agricultural activity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order quashing the demand for conversion charges was justified as the intrinsic nature of poultry farming qualifies it as an agricultural activity, irrespective of the scale.
Issues: The issue revolved around whether poultry farming on a large scale qualifies as an agricultural activity and whether it is subject to conversion charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the nature of poultry farming as an agricultural activity, irrespective of the scale, and the lack of prescription in the law regarding the size or dimensions of a poultry farm.
Final Decision: The appeal failed on merits, and the court dismissed the appeal with no orders as to costs.
( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Government Advocate and the respondent's learned Advocate on merits. Learned Government advocate vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has totally overlooked some of the salient aspects of the cases namely that this was an instance where the respondent who is the original petitioner was doing the poultry farming activity on a very large scale because according to the learned Government Advocate from the record it emerges that several buildings were constructed including the staff quarters and the like. His submission is that everything pointed out by the learned Single Judge and the references to the law which are made by respondents learned Advocate Mr. Shastry would hold good in the case of small farmers who rear poultry on a small scale in little farms and that in the present instance the land which is over 13 Acres was virtually converted into a large scale poultry farm. He submits that it is for the last of these reasons that the Assistant Commissioner insisted that the activity would come within the ambit of non-agricultural activity and that it would qualify for conversion charges, penalty etc. Mr. Shastry who represents the original petitioner has strongly refuted this contention and points out that the Government's own circulars and apart from Section 2 and section 81 of the Land Reforms Act fully support the view that poultry farming comes purely within the definition of agricultural activity.
( 2 ) WE have very carefully reviewed the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the light of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the appellants and we find that it is impossible to persuade ourselves that any interference is warranted with the order. The law does not prescribe the size or dimensions of a poultry farm or for that matter, the magnitude on which the business is carried out because irrespective of the scale, the intrinsic nature of the activity is such that it comes within the ambit of farming. Under these circumstances, the authority was clearly in error and the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in having quashed the order in question. In this background, we see no ground for interference. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed. No orders as to costs.
--- *** ---
.
