LAWS(KAR)-1988-1-20

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SENAPATHY WHITELY LTD

Decided On January 25, 1988
STATE OF KARNATAKA Appellant
V/S
SENAPATHY WHITELY LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 30-10-1984 vide Annexure-B setting aside the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, dated 24-1-1984 vide Annexure-A, which vested the 1st respondent's agricultural land in the State.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal because it held that the provisions of Section 79-B(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are only prospective in operation and do not apply to the agricultural lands held by the first respondent-company.

(3.) The facts of the case are as follows ; Senapathy Whitely Ltd., Achalu, Ramanagaram, which is respondent No. 1 in this petition is the owner of 2 acres of agricultural land (dry) in Sy. No. 35/1 of Achalu village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk. The said company purchased the land on 9-7-1968 from the Vendor Thimmaiah alias Gettaiah by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27-6-68 and the Company has been in possession and enjoyment of the land ever since the date of purchase. The Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore, initiated proceedings under Section 79-B(3) of the Act on receiving a declaration filed by the Company under the provisions of Section 79-B(2)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 24-1-1984 declaring that the land in question shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Power was exercised by him under the provisions of Section 79-B(3) of the Act. The 1st respondent was aggrieved by the said order and preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 120/1984 (LRF). After hearing the appellant and the respondents, therein, the Tribunal reversed the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and held that the provisions of Section 79B are not retrospective and therefore inapplicable to the agricultural land held by the first respondent-Company. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order of respondent-2.