JUDGMENT : Abhay Dhanapal Chougala, DJM 1. The appellant has filed this Appeal under Section 118(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") and called into question the order of the 1st respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, dated 26-8-2011, passed in No. L.R.F./79AB/CR/02/2007-08 (in short, "the impugned order"), under which he has held that the third respondent herein, has violated Section 79-A of the Act and directed to forfeit the lands bearing Sy. No. 58/9 measuring 0.33 guntas, Sy. No. 60/1 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No. 60/2 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas, situated at Halaganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk (in short, "the lands in question"). 2. In brief, the case of the appellant is as under: The appellant is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, which he purchased through registered sale deed dated 8-7-2010, executed by the 4th respondent and others and accordingly his name has been mutated to the records. The 4th respondent was the owner of the lands in question and had sold the same to the 3rd respondent through registered sale deed dated 21-12-2006. The 1st respondent based on a report of the 2nd respondent had initiated proceedings under the provisions of Sections 79-A and 79B of the Act, against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent did not contest the said proceedings and also did not file any documents. Accordingly the said proceedings before the 1st respondent was allowed and the lands were resumed to Government in the order dated 26-8-2011. The appellant was the owner of the lands as on the date of passing of the order and the revenue records were transferred in his name. No notice was given to the appellant by the 1st respondent before passing the impugned order. After coming to know of the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this Appeal on several grounds. 3. The appellant has filed I.A. No. IV under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 139 days. In support of his application, he has filed his affidavit, wherein he contended that the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order without notice to him. He came to know of the impugned order in February 2012 when he went to pay taxes. As he was not aware of the order there was a delay in filing the Appeal. In support of his application, he has filed his affidavit, wherein he contended that the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order without notice to him. He came to know of the impugned order in February 2012 when he went to pay taxes. As he was not aware of the order there was a delay in filing the Appeal. Hence he sought for condonation of delay. 4. The Appeal has been admitted on 21-12-2012, by keeping open the point of limitation. After service of notice, the learned ASR appeared for the 1st and 2nd respondents. The 3rd respondent remained absent. The 4th respondent appeared through his Counsel. The records have been secured. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, the learned ASR and the learned Counsel for the 4th respondent. Perused the material available on record. Therefore, the following points arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the delay condonation application deserves to be allowed? 2. Whether the appellant has established that the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside? 3. What order? 6. Our findings to the above raised points are as under: Point No. 1: In the Affirmative, Point No. 2: In the Negative, Point No. 3: As per final order, for the following: REASONS 7. Point No. 1: The impugned order was passed on 26-8-2011, whereas this appeal has been filed on 13-3-2012. Therefore, there is a delay of 04 months and 17 days i.e. 139 days. According to the appellant, he has not been served with the notice in respect of the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent and, therefore, he was not aware of the impugned order. 8. The respondents have not filed objections to L.A. No. IV, denying the reasons stated in the affidavit. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the appellant remain unchallenged. 9. It is relevant to note here that Section 122 of the Act, prescribes the period of limitation of 60 days for preferring an appeal. The said period of 60 days has to be reckoned from the date of the order, if the order was passed in the presence of the party or the legal practitioner appearing on his behalf or from the date of communication of the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed against the 3rd respondent herein and the appellant was not a party. The impugned order has been passed against the 3rd respondent herein and the appellant was not a party. It is his contention that, he purchased the land in question from the 4th respondent through sale deed dated 8-7-2010 and the revenue records were transferred in his name as per the orders of the 2nd respondent herein, dated 8-9-2010 and the 1st respondent without going through the records passed the impugned order on 26-8-2011. Further it is contended that he applied for a copy of the RTC in the month of February 2012 and came to know about the impugned order and then applied for the certified copy of the order and filed the Appeal. 10. The appellant has produced the certified copy of the impugned order along with this Appeal, which shows that the application for certified copy was filed on 2-2-2012 and the copy was delivered on 10-2-2012. The Appeal has been filed on 13-3-2012. 11. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party to the said proceedings. If, the appellant had the notice of the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent, and had not filed this Appeal in time, then the matter would have been different. Therefore, in order to do real and complete justice, we have reached a conclusion that this is a fit case where we have to exercise our discretion in condoning the delay. With these observations, we have answered the point under consideration accordingly. 12. Point No. 2: Section 79-A of the Act, debars certain persons whose annual income is not less than the ceiling limit, from acquiring the land, while Section 79-B of the Act, prohibits holding of agricultural land by a person other than a person cultivating land personally or not lawful for educational, religious or charitable institutions or society or trust or a company or co-operative society or body of individuals and associations to hold land. Section 80 of the Act, prohibits transfer of land in favour of non-agriculturists. 13. Section 82 specifies the manner in which the transactions of the lands, in contravention of the provisions of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80, can be reported and the manner in which the Prescribed Authority shall declare such transactions as in violation of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 or any other provisions of the Act. 13. Section 82 specifies the manner in which the transactions of the lands, in contravention of the provisions of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80, can be reported and the manner in which the Prescribed Authority shall declare such transactions as in violation of Sections 79-A, 79-B and 80 or any other provisions of the Act. For the purpose of better understanding the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Act, are extracted as under: "82. Reporting of illegal transactions.--Every village officer and every officer of the Revenue, Registration and Land Records Departments shall report to the Prescribed Authority, every transaction in respect of any land in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, as they stood before and as they stand after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act which comes to the notice of such officer. 83. Inquiry regarding illegal transaction.--The Prescribed Authority shall, after a summary inquiry, determine whether the transaction reported to it under Section 82 or coming to its notice in any other manner is in contravention of or is unlawful or invalid under the provisions of this Act, as they stood before or as they stand after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and make a declaration accordingly. Any transaction so declared to be in contravention of or is unlawful or invalid under any of the provisions of this Act, as they stood before or as they stand after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act shall be null and void. The land in respect of which such transaction has taken place shall, as penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. No amount is payable therefor." 14. The land in respect of which such transaction has taken place shall, as penalty, be forfeited to and vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. No amount is payable therefor." 14. On bare perusal of the above extracted provisions, it can be said that Section 82 of the Act, authorises the officers named therein, to submit their report to the Prescribed Authority, in respect of every transaction of agricultural lands, in contravention of any provisions of the Act and whereas under Section 83, the Prescribed Authority, is empowered to hold summary enquiry, in respect of such transactions reported by the Officers under Section 82 or on coming to his knowledge in any other manner and declare such transactions as in contravention of the Provisions of the Act and such transactions shall be null and void and as a penalty such land shall be forfeited to the State Government. 15. From the provisions of Section 83, it is crystal clear that the Prescribed Authority is required to hold summary enquiry, in order to ascertain, whether such transaction reported to him was in contravention of the provisions of any of the provisions of the Act and make a declaration accordingly. If the Prescribed Authority declares any such transaction as in contravention of the provisions of the Act, then such transactions shall be null and void and as a penalty, such land shall be forfeited to the State, free from all encumbrances. Therefore, while holding an enquiry under Section 83 of the Act, what is to be looked into is whether at the time of such transaction, the parties have contravened the provisions of the Act or not. If, the contravention of the provisions of the Act, is established, then the necessary implications shall follow. Any other events or developments or any subsequent transactions pertaining to such land have no consequences and the contravention, which was committed, at the time of the transaction, cannot be given up or excused, as the Prescribed Authority has no such power. Keeping in mind these relevant provisions and scope of the enquiry under Section 83 and also the powers and limits of the Prescribed Authority, let us turn our attention to the factual aspects of the case in hand. 16. Keeping in mind these relevant provisions and scope of the enquiry under Section 83 and also the powers and limits of the Prescribed Authority, let us turn our attention to the factual aspects of the case in hand. 16. On 26-3-2007 the 2nd respondent, who is the officer referred under Section 82 of the Act, submitted his report to the 1st respondent (the Prescribed Authority to hold summary enquiry), alleging that the 3rd respondent herein, had violated Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act, while purchasing the lands in question, under registered sale deed dated 21-12-2006. Based on that report, the 1st respondent registered the proceedings under Section 83 of the Act. It means the said proceedings under Section 83 of the Act, was initiated within reasonable time i.e. within 1 year from the date of the registered sale deed. It appears that after service of notice, the 3rd respondent herein, submitted his first reply on 24-4-2007, stating that he purchased the land in question on behalf of M/s. United Genetics India Private Limited, where he was Director and the said company had applied for permission under Section 109 of the Act, which was under consideration and as his vendor was in need of funds for his daughter's marriage, he registered in all 08.02 Acres in his name. 17. Further, it is relevant to note here that the 3rd respondent submitted his 2nd reply on 21-3-2008 (received by the 1st respondent office on 24-3-2008), in which he informed that the said Company had though applied for permission under Section 109 of the Act, but it could not obtain such permission and, therefore, he had cancelled the original sale deed by executing a cancellation deed in favor of his vendor on 19-3-2008. It appears that except submitting his said replies, the 3rd respondent herein, did not participate in the said proceedings, in order to establish that he had not violated Sections 79-A and 79-B of the Act. Considering the same the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order, declaring that there was contravention of the provisions of the Act, while purchasing the land in question and directed to forfeit the land in question to the Government. 18. Considering the same the 1st respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order, declaring that there was contravention of the provisions of the Act, while purchasing the land in question and directed to forfeit the land in question to the Government. 18. It is relevant to note here that the said order of the 1st respondent is now questioned by the appellant herein, on the ground that on 8-7-2010, he purchased the land in question from the 4th respondent herein, who was also vendor of the 3rd respondent herein. It is his contention that as on 8-7-2010, the 4th respondent was absolute owner of the land in question and he conveyed the same under registered sale deed and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. It is also his contention that the impugned order is against the Principles of natural justice as no notice was given to him and the impugned order adversely affect his rights over the land in question. 19. Before considering the contentions raised by the appellant, it is necessary to find out whether the 1st respondent has committed any illegality in declaring that the 3rd respondent has contravened Section 79-A of the Act. 20. As stated above, the 3rd respondent herein, even after service of notice, did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the respondent therein. Whether, the appellant herein was entitled for an opportunity of being heard or not is discussed in the later part of this judgment. When the 3rd respondent herein, failed to participate in the said proceedings except submitting his two replies, the 1st respondent herein, proceeded to pass the impugned order based on the material available on record. 21. The records disclose that on 5-3-2007, the 3rd respondent herein, had given a letter to the Revenue Inspector of Gowribidanur Taluk, along with his affidavit, income tax returns, copies of RTCs of Sy. No. 153/3 of Karimatthihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Haveri Taluk. In the said affidavit, the 3rd respondent herein had categorically stated that he is an agriculturist and apart from that he is also a partner in M/s. Ashoka Farm Aids, engaged in agricultural business and his annual income for the year 2006-07 was Rs. 10,67,599/-. No. 153/3 of Karimatthihalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Haveri Taluk. In the said affidavit, the 3rd respondent herein had categorically stated that he is an agriculturist and apart from that he is also a partner in M/s. Ashoka Farm Aids, engaged in agricultural business and his annual income for the year 2006-07 was Rs. 10,67,599/-. The copies of the IT returns submitted by the 3rd respondent herein, discloses the following income for the relevant assessment years: Sl. No. Financial year Assessment year Income (in Rs.) 1. 2002-03 2003-04 147580 2. 2003-04 2004-05 261790 3. 2004-05 2005-06 257293 4. 2005-06 2006-07 1067599 Total 1734262 22. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent had purchased the lands in question, on 21-12-2006. As per the provisions of Section 79-A of the Act, we have to take into consideration the aggregate annual non-agricultural income of the purchaser, for a period of 5 years, preceding the date, on which the lands were purchased. Therefore, in this case, it is necessary to take into consideration, the non-agricultural income of the 3rd respondent, from the assessment years 2002-03 to 2006-07 (financial years 2001-02 to 2005-06). But, the 3rd respondent has furnished the income tax returns from the assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 (Financial years 2002-03 to 2005-06). 23. Even from the income tax returns produced by the 3rd respondent, as shown in the above table, it can be said that the aggregate annual non-agricultural income of the 3rd respondent herein, exceeds income stipulated under Section 79-A of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity committed by the 1st respondent in holding that the 3rd respondent herein, had violated Section 79-A of the Act. In other words, the 1st respondent was very much within his jurisdiction to declare that there was a contravention of Section 79-A of the Act. 24. Considering the modus operandi of the 3rd and 4th respondents, we are compelled to make the following observations. When an Act, prescribes that a particular transaction or conduct or act etc., is illegal and if such illegal thing is committed, then the necessary implications, prescribed under the Act, shall follow. If that particular Act, prescribes any such provision, to rectify or undo such illegality, then by invoking such provisions, such illegality can be rectified or corrected. When an Act, prescribes that a particular transaction or conduct or act etc., is illegal and if such illegal thing is committed, then the necessary implications, prescribed under the Act, shall follow. If that particular Act, prescribes any such provision, to rectify or undo such illegality, then by invoking such provisions, such illegality can be rectified or corrected. But, if, no such provision is provided, then the parties have to face the consequences and they are not entitled to avoid such consequences, by themselves. In this particular case the lands in question were purchased by the 3rd respondent, in contravention of the provisions of Chapter V of the Act. When he received the notice of the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act, he executed deed of reconveyance dated 19-3-2008 in favour of his own vendor. From this conduct of the parties, an inference can be drawn that the deed of reconveyance was executed only with an intention to avoid the consequences or penalty prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. If the parties are permitted to execute such deeds of reconveyance, then the very purpose or object of incorporating Chapter V of the Act, will be defeated. In such a situation, in most of the proceedings, initiated under Section 83 of the Act, if really there was violation of the provisions of the Act, then the parties can avoid the consequences, by executing the deed of reconveyance and such practice can neither be permitted nor encouraged. 25. No doubt, that the appellant purchased the land in question from the 4th respondent. But, only on the ground that he purchased the land in accordance with the law, the contravention of the provisions by the 3rd and 4th respondent, cannot be ignored or overlooked. Though, we can understand the situation of the appellant, but, we are helpless. It is not inappropriate for us to observe here that the appellant was also under legal obligation to verify the relevant records and also the proceedings pertaining to the land in question pending before any Competent Authority, before entering into the sale transaction with the 4th respondent. If the appellant had shown some diligence, then he would have avoided his present situation. If the appellant had shown some diligence, then he would have avoided his present situation. In our considered view, the remedy available to the appellant is not before this Tribunal, but, he can workout his remedy, as against the 3rd and 4th respondent, in appropriate proceeding, before Appropriate Authority. 26. No doubt, that the appellant purchased the land in question one year before the passing of the impugned order. But, in our considered view, the appellant herein, was not a necessary party to the proceedings before the 1st respondent, though he was a proper party. When the documents produced by the 3rd respondent were sufficient to ascertain whether there was contravention of Section 79-A of the Act, therefore, even no purpose would have been served by giving an opportunity to the present appellant to participate in the said proceedings. In this Appeal also we have given him an opportunity to show that the impugned order is either illegal or unsustainable and in our considered view, he has failed to establish the same. Therefore, only on technical ground that the 1st respondent had not given an opportunity to the appellant, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. With these observations, we have answered the point under consideration accordingly. 27. Point No. 3: Before parting with this judgment, we hereby give directions to the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, to make it mandatory for all the Prescribed Authorities, to enter the number of the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act, in column (11) of the RTC of the land/lands, involved in such proceedings, as an information or caution to those third parties, who intend to deal with such land/lands, in order to avoid the consequences the appellant is facing in this Appeal. With these observations and for the above discussed reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Delay is condoned. The appeal filed under Section 118(2) of the KLR Act, is dismissed. The order dated 26-8-2011 passed by the 1st respondent in L.R.F./79AB/CR/02/2007-08 is hereby confirmed. Office is hereby directed to send the copy of this judgment to the 1st respondent within 30 days, through registered post, along with records. Further, Office is hereby directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, for compliance of the directed issue under para 27 of this judgment.