B.M. UPENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla appearing for the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be a member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), which has been carrying on agricultural operations on agricultural lands in Koteswara village, Kundapur Taluk. The petitioner's family is said to have purchased agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos. 13, 13/1, 14 and 15/2 of Byalalu village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk totally measuring about 17 acres 10 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 18.3.2005 in the name of the petitioner. Subsequent to the purchase, the khata of the property is said to have been transferred in the name of the petitioner. The record of rights pertaining to the property also reflected the petitioner as the owner and cultivator of the land in question. Copies of those records were annexed to the petitions.

(3.) THE learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaym Holla appearing for the Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, without entering upon the merits of the case, there is a primary ground on which the proceedings would have to be set at naught. He would point out that the sale of the land was on 18.03.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Assistant Commissioner and had in fact sought clarification whether there were any proceedings initiated under the KLR Act and he was informed by an endorsement Annexure -"G" to the petitions, that there were indeed no such proceedings. It is thereafter that he has ventured to create a substantial loan of Rs. 35,00,000/ - on the security of the property, from M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited and has invested monies, with an effort in developing the land further. In the event the petitioner had been placed on notice of the alleged violation, he would not have ventured to invest in the properties or created any interest in favour of third parties insofar as the property is concerned, thereby jeopardising not only the interest of the third party, but he would not have also expended effort in the development by further investment and labour.