Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 755 (KAR)

L. Apparao v. Tahasildar

2014-08-26

H.G.RAMESH

body2014
Judgment : H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dtd. 07.04.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.486/2010. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's appeal filed under Sec. 118(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act') by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner dtd. 21.01.2009 whereby 10 guntas of agricultural land purchased by the petitioner on 29th December 2007 is forfeited to the State Government on the ground that the purchase violated Sections 79A & 79B of the Act. 2. I have heard Mr. D.N. Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner was an agriculturist even before purchasing the agricultural land in question and he was not disentitled under Sections 79A, 79B, & 80 of the Act to acquire or hold any agricultural land as on the date of purchase of the land in question. He contended that the Tribunal, while considering the appeal, misdirected itself by examining as to whether the appellant had owned any agricultural land prior to 01.03.1974 to entitle him to purchase any agricultural land in Karnataka after 01.03.1974. 3. The contention that there was misdirection by the Tribunal in considering the appeal merits acceptance. The Tribunal has examined the appeal on an erroneous assumption that one should have owned agricultural land before 01.03.1974 to acquire any agricultural land in Karnataka after 01.03.1974. This approach is wholly wrong in law as there is no such requirement either in Sections 79A, 79B, and 80 of the Act or in any other law. In my opinion, any person can acquire or hold agricultural lands in Karnataka provided the acquisition or holding is not violative of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Act. 4. At this stage, learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that the impugned judgment dtd. 07.04.2014 passed by the appellate Tribunal as also the order dtd. 21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law. 5. On the facts of the case, I accept the fair submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and accordingly make the following order: The judgment dtd. 07.04.2014 and the order dtd. 21.01.2009 are set aside. 5. On the facts of the case, I accept the fair submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader and accordingly make the following order: The judgment dtd. 07.04.2014 and the order dtd. 21.01.2009 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to produce all relevant documents in support of his claim that he was an agriculturist even prior to purchase of the agricultural land in question and that the purchase made was not in violation of Sections 79A, 79B & 80 of the Act. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. Petition disposed of.