VICON L T D Vs. ASSISTANT COMMR BENGALORE REV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition which is one under Art 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to declare the two notices of even number LRA 45/73-74 dated 30-1-1974 and 7-6-1974, which are at Exts 'A' and 'D' respectively issued by the respondent are illegal and ultra vires the powers of the respondent and quash the entire proceedings against petitioner-1 in Case No. LR \ 45/73-74 on the file of the respondent now pending and further to issue a direction prohibiting the respondent and officers.subordinate to him from taking any action or-proceedings against petitioner-1 in purported exercise of the power under S. 83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in respect of the lands of petitioner-1 or interfering in any other manner with the right of petitioner-1 to hold its lands on the various grounds detailed in the writ petition.

(2.) It may be necessary to refer to a few material facts on which the petition is founded which are as follows. Petitioner-1 M/s. Vicon Limited, is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having a factory at White field, Bangalore, in which agricultural machineries are manufactured. The objects of the company also include cultivation of land by the Company. Petitioner-2 M. Ramachandran, who was one of the promoters of.the 1st petitioner-Company purchased some agricultural lands in Sadaramangala village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, for constructing the factory of the company. Immediately after the 1st petitioner company was incorporated in the year 1968, it commenced agricultural operations in the land and personally cultivated it. In the accounting year 1968-69, the 1st petitioner had an income of Rs. 3,898-73 by sale of agricultural produce like maize, ragi. ragi-straw and horsegram grown on the land cultivated by the company. Being an agriculturist as defined under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, as then in force, the 1st petitioner purchased 7 acres of land in S. No. 74 on 8-10-68 and 32 acres of land in S. No. 77 between June and October 1968 of Sadaramangala village. Since only a person who was not an agriculturist but who bona fide intended to take up agriculture had to obtain the permis ion of the Assistant Commissioner for making the purchase under Sec. 80 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and since the 1st petitioner was an agriculturist and was therefore free to purchase agricultural lands, no permission of the Assistant Commissioner was taken before the lands were purchased. After the lands were purchased by the 1st petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of S. 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rules 63 to 66 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 19766 the prescribed revenue authorities, after satisfying themselves that the sales in favour of the 1st petitioner were valid, made the necessary entries in the record of rights specifying the 1st petitioner as the owner of those lands. The 1st petitioner was personally cultivating the agricultural lands owned by it till about the end of the year 1973. The 1st petitioner then stopped cultivation of the lands and decided to use its lands exclusively for non-agricultural purposes for testing the machineries manufactured in the factory and for other purposes connected wsth the factory. The 1st petitioner also applied under S. 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for conversion of the lands for use for non-agricultural purposes and the lands have be- n statutorily converted as non-agricultural lands by the operation. S. 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. More than five years after the 1ft petitioner purchased thq lands and the State had accepted and recognised the ownership of the 1st petitioner and was recovering the land revenues' from it, the 1st petitioner received on 7-2-74 a notice in LRA 45-73-74 dated 30-1-1974 from the respondent as per Ext.-A stating that it had come to his notice that the 1st petitioner has purchased agricultural lands in S. No. 74|77 of Sadaramangala village, Bangalore South Taluk without obtaining permission under S. 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and, directing the 1st petitioner to appear before the respondent on 15-2-1974 alone with the connected documents for enquiry. The 1st petitioner submitted a reply dated 8-4-74 as per Exhibit-B in which it was explained that the 1st petitioner was an agriculturist and no permission of the Assistant Commissioner for purchase of the lands was therefore, required under Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. A further reply dated 30-5-74 as per Ext.-C was also submitted to the respondent giving details of the Cultivation operations carried on by the 1st petitioner as an agriculturist. After submitting the replies by the 1st petitioner as per Exts. B and C to the notice Exhibit-A issued by the respondent, the respondent once again sent Another notice No.LRA 45 73-74 dated 7-6-74 Exhibit-D stating that it had come to his notice that the transaction of bale in favour of the 1st petitioner in respect of agricultural lands situated in S.No. 74-77 of Sadaramangal village was without the permission of the Assistant Commissioner as required under Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and that the respondent intended to hold an enquiry, under- S. 83 of the said Act to find out if there is any contravention of the provisions of Section 80 of the said Act and calling upon the 1st petitioner to attend the enquiry to be held on 19-6-74 at 3-30 p.m. in his office with all the evidence the 1st petitioner may choose to adduce. A reply as per exhibit-E dated 17-7-1974 to the notice of the respondent Exhibit-D was submitted by the 1st petitioner in which the 1st petitioner raised certain objections to the enquiry proposed to be held by the respondent inter alia contending that the respondent had no jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under Section 83 firstly because he had not been specified as the prescribed authority for the purpose of the said Section in any Rule made under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, secondly because the transactions referred to in Section 80 were not illegal transactions as contemplated under Section 83 and were there- tore, outside the scope of that section and further that since the enquiry under Section 83 could result in the penalty of forfeiture of the lands of the perspn against whom the enquiry was held, it was a quasi-criminal proceedings and therefore, in on enquiry under that Section, the burden of proof of contravention of a provision of the Act was on the Revenue Department and that after the Revenue Department had adduced by the Re- sary evidence to prove the alleged contravention, Petitioner No. 1 could be called upon to adduce evidence to rebut the evidence adduced by the Revenue Department. The respondent first heard arguments on the objections questioning his jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under Section 83 and after considering the objections, the arguments made orally as also written arguments, the respondent passed an order pn 29-10-74 as per Exhibit G overruling the objections of the 1st petitioner. Then the respondent called upon the petitioner to a,dduce evidence first to which the respondent was requested to pass orders on the objections filed by the 1st petitioner relating to the burden of proof in the enquiry. Thereupon, the respondent heard the arguments on this matter and, passed an order on 29-1-75 overruling the objections of the 1st petitioner as per Exhibit-H. The 1st petitioner purchased the lands as an agriculturist and the State Government has statutorily recognised the 1st petitioner as the lawful OWNER of the lands under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the first petitioner hIs been cultivating the lands . and enjoying peaceful possession all all these years. The respondent arbitrarily and capriciously and without any justification whatsoever has chosen to pick the 1st petitioner- Company and has demanded that the company should prove to him that it is the lawful owner of the lands. The arbitrary proceedings started against the 1st petitioner by the respondent in purported exercise of a power not vested in him and following a,n illegal and unconstitutional procedure with the threat of depriving the 1st petitioner of its lands are violative of the fundamental rights of petitioner-1 guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 31(1) of the Constitution. The proceedings are also violative of the fundamental rights of petitioners 2 and 3 guaranteed by Arts. 14, 19(1) (f), 18(1) (g) and, 31 (1) of the Constitution. The petitioners have no other legal remedies. On these grounds the petitioners have filed-this writ petition for the reliefs set out earlier.

(3.) Shri S. G. Sunderaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, in the course of his argument, raised several contentions in support of the petitioners' case. They were: