Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
K.S. Mudagal, J.
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
M/s Dhammanagi and Sanu Developers Pvt. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.20541 of 2017 [LR-RES]
Decided On : 03-01-2018
For the Petitioner:Shri. Madhusudan R. Naik, Advocate General
For the Respondent:Shri. Anant Mandagi, Senior Advocate and Shri. Hemant Chandangoudar Adv.
Headnote:KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 [K.A. No. 10/1962] - Sections 79 -A, 79-B, 2(18) - Vesting of land in Government - Plea of State that land granted exclusively for agricultural purpose cannot be put to use, without converting it to non-agricultural purpose - Records clearly showing that lands in question were used for non-agricultural purpose since long and assessed by City Survey - Land neither cultivated nor capable of being cultivated would not fall within definition of 'agricultural land' - No permission needed for conversion - Provisions of Section 79-A, 79-B cannot be applied - Land cannot be vested in favour of Government.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 [K.A. No. 10/1962] - Sections 79 -A, 79-B, 83 - Possession of agricultural land - Order taking possession passed on 2.12.2016 - Order is appealable - Respondent seriously contested notice issued by State - Despite, Asst. Commissioner directed Tahsildar to take possession of land only on date of passing order - Tahsildar within three days dispossessing respondents from their land without giving opportunity to prefer appeal - Held, Initiation of proceedings by State is tainted with malice and is illegal - State cannot take possession of land.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 [K.A. No. 10/1962] - Sections 79 -A, 79-B - Possession of land - Exercise of suo motu powers - Khata changed in name of vendee after purchasing properties - Sub-Registrar not raising any objection for registration of sale deed - Assistant Commissioner after lapse of one year cannot exercise suo motu powers to hold that sale in favour of vendee is violative of Sections 79-A and 79-B of Act of 1962.
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 [K.A. No. 10/1962] - Sections 79 -A, 79-B - Violation of condition of grant - Land granted under Watans Abolotion Act, 1959 - Plea of State that land granted exclusively for agricultural purpose cannot be put to use for non-agricultural purpose - Records showing that land used for non-agricultural purpose since 1982 - No action initiated by State under relevant Watans Abolition Act, 1959 - State cannot invoke Sections 79-A and 79-B of Act of 1962.
“Whether the lands bearing RS Nos.971/1, 972/2 and 971/3 measuring 26 acres 32 guntas situated within Belagavi city are the lands as defined under Section 2(18) of the Karnatak a Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 79A and 79B of the Act can be applied to them?” is the question involved in this case.
2. The aforesaid lands were the Watan lands belonging to one Kulkarni family. Under order Annexure ‘B’ dated 18.08.1960 they were re-granted to the said Watandar under the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act 1827. Though initially the said lands situated within the limits of Belagavi village, on declaration of Belagavi agglomeration area, they came under the umbrella of Belagavi City Municipal Corporation as well as Belagavi Urban Development Authority. Under the revised Master Plan 2014, Belagavi Urban Development Authority earmarked the said lands for the public and semi-public purpose as they situate in the heart of Belagavi City.
3. The land owners along with their power of attorney holder/assignor Shankar Hanumantappa Munavalli sold the said lands to the respondents under the registered sale deeds ‘C1’ to ‘C9’ dated 23.01.2015, 24.01.2015, 31.01.2015, 06.02.2015, 09.02.2015, 27.05.2015, 28.05.2015, 30.05.2015 and 01.06.2015.
4. On 30.05.2016, one Rev.Dr.Prabhakar Shadrack addressed Annexure ‘D’ the complaint to the 2nd petitioner - Assistant Commissioner alleging that the respondents have violated the provisions of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act in purchasing the lands and he sought action against them for such violation.
5. As admitted in the petition itself, the 2nd petitioner on the basis of Annexure ‘D’, registered a case in No.KLR/79(A)(B)/CR-06/2015-16 against the respondents and sought a report in the matter from the 3rd petitioner Tahsildar. Accordingly, the 3rd petitioner filed his report Annexure ‘E’ dated 6th July 2016. In Annexure ‘E’, the 3rd petitioner reported that the respondents have violated Sections 79A and 79B of the Act in purchasing the lands in question.
6. Based on the report Annexure-E, the 2nd petitioner issued the notice Annexure ‘F’ dated 25th July 2016 to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for the violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act and the lands should not be confiscated to the State.
7. In reply to Annexure-F the respondents appeared before the 2nd petitioner and submitted their detailed objections. They mainly contended that the properties in question are not the lands as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act and therefore, Sections 79A and 79B of the Act or the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act do not apply to them. Hence, they sought dropping of the proceedings.
8. In those proceedings, the 2nd petitioner passed order Annexure ‘G’ dated 2nd December 2016 holding that though the lands are in the City limits, unless they are converted to non-agriculture use by an order, they remain the lands as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act. In the said order, it was further held that the respondents have not produced any order of conversion or permission under Section 109 of the Act, therefore there is violation of Sections 79A and 79B of the Act.
9. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent vide order Annexure-G declared that the sale of the land in favour of the respondents is violative of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the same shall vest in Government free of all encumbrances and the lands are confiscated to the State.
10. Respondents challenged the order Annexure-G before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.1072/2016. The Tribunal vide order Annexure-A allowed the appeal on the following grounds:
(i) The land in question comes within the jurisdiction of the Belgavi Town Municipal Council and the Municipality has assessed them to tax and recovered the tax.
(ii) The land comes within the Belgavi Urban Development Authority and as per the Master Plan published by t
