S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) BY sale deed dated 10-10-1984, the petitioner purchased 0-13 guntas of land in sy. No. 54 and 3 acres 8 guntas of land in sy. No. 53/1-a of turahalli village, uttarahalli hobli. The tahsildar issued Annexure-D , an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- for failure to furnish a declaration under sections 79-a and 79-b of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the act') and directed that the revenue inspector should recover the penalty of Rs. 500/- from the date of service of the notice. The petitioner challenged the order Annexure-D in appeal before the assistant commissioner, Bangalore, who dismissed the appeal. thereafter, an appeal under Section 118 of the act before the karnataka appellate tribunal which allowed the appeal, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the assistant commissioner, Bangalore, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the order of the remand is challenged as without jurisdiction. The main contention before this court is that as on the day, the sale in favour of the petitioner was executed, the outline development plan pertaining to Bangalore city was in force and subsequently, the comprehensive development plan has been in force and therefore, there was no liability on the part of the petitioner to have made any declaration at all inasmuch as the user of the land, after the publication of the outline development plan and the comprehensive development plan, was regulated by the Karnataka town and country planning act of 1961. It is also contended that the subject of the appeal was only the notice issued under Section 79-c of the act and the Karnataka appellate tribunal could not have directed the assistant commissioner to enquire into the matter as to whether there was a violation of Section 80 of the act. The question that had to be decided by the Karnataka appellate tribunal was whether the imposition of the penalty under Section 79-c of the Act, without following the procedure stated therein, was in accordance with law. Undisputably, the petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with Section 79-c of the act. The question that had to be decided by the Karnataka appellate tribunal was whether the imposition of the penalty under Section 79-c of the Act, without following the procedure stated therein, was in accordance with law. Undisputably, the petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with Section 79-c of the act. Section 79-c of the act stipulates that where a person fails to furnish declaration under Section 79-a or Section 79-b or furnishes a declaration knowing or having reason to believe it to be false, the tahsildar shall issue a notice in the prescribed form to show cause within 15 days from the date of service thereof why the penalty specified in the notice, which may extend to five hundred rupees, may not be imposed upon such person. on service of such a notice, the person would have to submit a reply which shall be examined by the tahsildar and thereafter impose such penalty as may be thought proper and also direct the person to furnish a true and correct declaration complete in all particulars and on failure to comply with the order of the tahsildar, the right, title and interest in the land concerned shall, as a penalty, stand forfeited to and vest in the government. ( 3 ) SECTION 80 of the Land Reforms Act relates to the prohibition against sale or gift or exchange or lease of any land or interest therein to a person who is not an agriculturist etc. It is unnecessary to go into the details of Section 80 of the act as in this case, the question of holding that the sale in favour of the petitioner violated Section 80 of the act has not yet come up for examination. ( 4 ) THE liability for for feiture of the land for non-compliance with Section 79-c of the Land Reforms Act is independent of forfeiture of the land for contravention under Section 80 of the act. The scope of section 80 of the act is different, as it deals with invalidity of sale, gift, exchange or lease of any land or interest therein or mortgage of land or interest therein involving delivery of possession except in favour of an agriculturist, etc. , save on permission, with conditions of the authority specified therein. The scope of section 80 of the act is different, as it deals with invalidity of sale, gift, exchange or lease of any land or interest therein or mortgage of land or interest therein involving delivery of possession except in favour of an agriculturist, etc. , save on permission, with conditions of the authority specified therein. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the Karnataka appellate tribunal went beyond the scope of the enquiry, for contravention of Section 80 of the act was not in issue; whereas what was under examination was the imposition of a penalty under Section 79-c of the act. Having regard to the difference in scope of Section 79-c and Section 80, the Karnataka appellate tribunal could not have assumed a contravention of Section 80 of the act. All that the Karnataka appellate tribunal was required to examine was whether the appellant's case of denial of hearing before any penalty was sought to be imposed under Section 79-c of the act was in accordance with law. The Karnataka appellate tribunal could not have, without any material, directed an enquiry regarding violation of Section 80 of the act by the assistant commissioner. The order of remand to the assistant commissioner by the Karnataka appellate tribunal is clearly beyond the scope of the appeal that was before it. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that on account of the publication of the outline development plan and comprehensive development plan relating to Bangalore city, the lands in question is outside the purview of the Provisions of the act and therefore, the question of compliance with Section 79-a or punishment for non-compliance with Section 79-a as contemplated by Section 79-c would not arise and the tahsildar would have no jurisdiction to impose a penalty even after an enquiry as provided under Section 79-c. This is a contention which could be raised in response to the notice under Section 79-c of the act issued or to be issued by the tahsildar and the tahsildar to take a decision in the matter. It would not be proper at this stage to say whether the tahsildar would have no jurisdiction at all by reason of the submission referred to above on behalf of the petitioner. It would not be proper at this stage to say whether the tahsildar would have no jurisdiction at all by reason of the submission referred to above on behalf of the petitioner. The question regarding jurisdiction is to be left open to be urged before the tahsildar in reply to the notice under Section 79-c of the act. Having regard to the fact that action can be initiated only by the tahsildar under section 79-c of the act and having regard to the fact that Annexure-D came to be issued in contravention of the procedure stipulated in Section 79-c of the Act, Annexure-D requires to be set aside. ( 7 ) THE question as to whether the tahsildar could initiate action under Section 79-c of the act in accordance with law is a matter to be left open to be decided by the tahsildar and if he is of the opinion that a proper notice should be issued under Section 79-c of the Act, it is left open to the tahsildar to initiate action in accordance with law. In view of this reservation of liberty to the tahsildar, the remand order impugned herein deserves to be set aside, as also the notice Annexure-D. in terms stated above, the writ petition is allowed. --- *** --- .