ORDER B. Sreenivase Gowda, J. The petitioner claims to be purchaser of the land bearing Sy.No.25/5 measuring 12 guntas situated at Dasanapura village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk has preferred this petition challenging the order Annexure-‘C’ dated 17/3/2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in dismissing his Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in dismissing his Appeal 81/05 and confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Asst. Commissioner vide Annexure-‘B’ dated 16/6/2004 whereby the 2nd respondent ordered for resumption of his land in favour of the Government and further directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of the Government in place of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the said land. 2. I have heard Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 2. 3. Few facts that are required for disposal of this writ petition are stated as under: The 1st respondent-Tahsildar reported to the 2nd respondent-Asst. Commissioner stating that the petitioner being a non-agriculturist and having income of not less than Rs.2,00,000/- has acquired 0-12 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.25/5 of Dasanapura village, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘land’) in contravention of the provisions of Sections 79-A, B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) and requested for forfeiting the land in favour of the Government. 4. That on the basis of the report of the Tahsildar the 2nd respondent -registered a case vide No. LRF (1) 320/95-96 and issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to offer his explanation as to why the land should not be resumed to Government. The petitioner filed his Statement of Objections by enclosing certain documents in support of his contention that he has not contravened any of the provisions much less Sections 79A, B & 80 of the Act in acquiring the land and he prayed for dropping of the proceedings. 5. The 2nd respondent by order Annexure -B ordered for resumption of the land in favour of the Government and directed the Tashildar to enter the name of the Government in place of the petitioner in the Revenue Records in respect of the said land. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner challanged the same in Appeal No.81/05 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner challanged the same in Appeal No.81/05 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The Appellate Tribunal by its order Annexure-C dated 17/3/2006 has also dismissed the appeal thereby confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has produced the following documents (1) a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Gubbi Taluk stating that his father owns agricultural lands in Manikuppe village, of Gubbi Taluk (2) a copy of the family partition deed dated 6/4/1946 along with a genealogical tree of his family. (3) A certified copy of RTC. (4) Income certificate for the period of 2001-2002 in support of his contention that he is an agriculturist and acquisition of land by him is not in contravention of the Act. 7. It was the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, notwithstanding the production of these documents the 2nd respondent could not have proceeded on the basis of his income for the period subsequent to acquisition of land. He invited my attention to Sec. 79-A of the Act, which reads thus: “79-A, Acquisition of land by certain persons prohibited (1) On and from the commencement of the (the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1905), no person who or a family or a joint family which has an assured annual income of not less than rupees (two lakhs) from sources other than agricultural lands shall be entitled to acquire any land whether as land owner, landlord, tenant or mortgagee with possession or otherwise or partly in one capacity and partly in another: (2) For the purposes of Sub-section (1)- (i) the aggregate income of all the members of the family of a family or a joint family from sources other than agricultural land shall be deemed to be income of the family or joint family, as the case may be, from such sources; (ii) a person or a family or a joint family shall be deemed to have an assured annual income of not less than rupees (two lakhs) from sources other than agricultural land on any day if such person or family or joint family had an average annual income of not less than rupees (two lakhs) from such sources during a period of five consecutive years preceeding such day. Explanation: A person who or a family or a joint family which has been assessed to income tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Central Act 43 of 1961) on an yearly total income of not less than rupees (two lakhs) for five consecutive years shall be deemed to have an average annual income of not less than (two lakhs) from sources other than agricultural lands.” 8. If a person or a family or joint family acquires an agricultural land in contravention of the provisions of Sec.79-A of the Act, every Village Officer and every officer of the Revenue, Registration and Land Records Departments shall report the same to the prescribed authority as required under Sec. 82 of the Act. On such report of the matter, the prescribed authority shall after summary enquiry determine whether the transaction reported to/him under Sec. 82 or coming to/its notice in any other manner is in contravention or is unlawful or invalid and make a declaration accordingly. Any transactions so declared to be incontravention of the provisions of this Act be forfeited to and vest in the State Government. 9. According to Sec. 79-A(2)(ii) a person or a family or a joint family shall be deemed to have an assured annual income of not less than Rs.2,00,000/- from the sources other than agricultural land on any day if such person or family or joint family had an average annual income of not less Rs.2,00,000/- from such sources during the period of five consecutive years preccding such day. That means to say, acquisition of agricultural land by a person or a family or a joint family having an average annual income of not less than Rs.2,00,000/- from sources other than agricultural land on any day during the period of five consecutive years preceeding the day of acquisition amounts to acquisition of land in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 79-A of the Act. What is required to be considered by the authority in deciding as to whether acquistion of an agricultural land by person or family or joint family having income of not less than Rs.2,00,000/- from the sources other than agricultural land during five consecutive years immediately prior to the acquisition of land. 10. It is unfortunate that the Asst. Commissioner who is vested with the power under Secs. 10. It is unfortunate that the Asst. Commissioner who is vested with the power under Secs. 79-A, 79-B, 80 and 83 of the Act without understanding these provisions in a proper manner and without considering whether the petitioner before acquiring the land had an assured annual income not less than Rs.2,00,000/- from sources other than agricultural land on any day during the period of five consecutive years prior to acquisition of land or not, merely because the petitioner has produced a certificate relating to his income for the period subsequent to acquisition of land, the 2nd respondent -Asst. Commissioner shall not have relied upon the same and declared the acquisition of land by the petitioner is in contravention of Sec. 79-A of the Act and ordered for resumption of the land in favour of the Government and enter the name of the Government in place of the land in question. It is unfortunate that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal also without considering the relevant provisions of the Act properly dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner and blindly confirmed the order of the Asst. Commissioner. Both the Asst. Commissioner as well as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal have failed to consider the documents produced by the petitioner i.e., the certificate issued by the Tahsildar of Gubbi Taluk stating that petitioner’s father owns agricultural lands in manikuppe village, of Gubbi Taluk and the family partition deed dated 6/4/1946 along with the genealogical tree of his family and copies of the RTC, in support of his claim that he has come from agricultural family and acquisition of land in question is not in contrvention of the provisions of the Act. Both the Asst. Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal have passed the impugned orders unmindful of the consequence of their orders. 11. Sri R. B. Sathynarayana Singh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 fairly conceded the Asst. Commmissioner as well as Karnataka Appellate Tribunal have not considered the matter in the light of the provisions of Secs. 79-A, 79-B, 80, 82 and 83 of the Act. 12. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to remand the matter to the Asst. Commmissioner for reconsideration of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the light of the observations made herein above. 79-A, 79-B, 80, 82 and 83 of the Act. 12. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to remand the matter to the Asst. Commmissioner for reconsideration of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in the light of the observations made herein above. Hence, the following Order: The writ petition is allowed. The order Annexure B 16/6/2004 passed by the 2nd respondent -Asst. Commissioner and the order Annexure-C dated 17/3/2006 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are hereby set aside and the matter is remmitted to the Asst. Commssioner with a direction to reconsider the matter in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 79A, 79-B, 80, 82 and 83 of the Act and in the light of the observations made herein above.