PADMA KHAITAN Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY sale deed dated 10-10-1984, the petitioner purchased 0-13 guntas of land in sy. No. 54 and 3 acres 8 guntas of land in sy. No. 53/1-a of turahalli village, uttarahalli hobli. The tahsildar issued Annexure-D , an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 500/- for failure to furnish a declaration under sections 79-a and 79-b of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the act') and directed that the revenue inspector should recover the penalty of Rs. 500/- from the date of service of the notice. The petitioner challenged the order Annexure-D in appeal before the assistant commissioner, Bangalore, who dismissed the appeal. thereafter, an appeal under Section 118 of the act before the karnataka appellate tribunal which allowed the appeal, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the assistant commissioner, Bangalore, for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the order of the remand is challenged as without jurisdiction. The main contention before this court is that as on the day, the sale in favour of the petitioner was executed, the outline development plan pertaining to Bangalore city was in force and subsequently, the comprehensive development plan has been in force and therefore, there was no liability on the part of the petitioner to have made any declaration at all inasmuch as the user of the land, after the publication of the outline development plan and the comprehensive development plan, was regulated by the Karnataka town and country planning act of 1961. It is also contended that the subject of the appeal was only the notice issued under Section 79-c of the act and the Karnataka appellate tribunal could not have directed the assistant commissioner to enquire into the matter as to whether there was a violation of Section 80 of the act. The question that had to be decided by the Karnataka appellate tribunal was whether the imposition of the penalty under Section 79-c of the Act, without following the procedure stated therein, was in accordance with law. Undisputably, the petitioner was not dealt with in accordance with Section 79-c of the act. Section 79-c of the act stipulates that where a person fails to furnish declaration under Section 79-a or Section 79-b or furnishes a declaration knowing or having reason to believe it to be false, the tahsildar shall issue a notice in the prescribed form to show cause within 15 days from the date of service thereof why the penalty specified in the notice, which may extend to five hundred rupees, may not be imposed upon such person. on service of such a notice, the person would have to submit a reply which shall be examined by the tahsildar and thereafter impose such penalty as may be thought proper and also direct the person to furnish a true and correct declaration complete in all particulars and on failure to comply with the order of the tahsildar, the right, title and interest in the land concerned shall, as a penalty, stand forfeited to and vest in the government.

(3.) SECTION 80 of the Land Reforms Act relates to the prohibition against sale or gift or exchange or lease of any land or interest therein to a person who is not an agriculturist etc. It is unnecessary to go into the details of Section 80 of the act as in this case, the question of holding that the sale in favour of the petitioner violated Section 80 of the act has not yet come up for examination.