Uppi, a farmer actor
Real Star Upendra bought 17 acres of farmland showing income below Rs 2 lakh; HC has now ruled in his favour as Karnataka took time to act
More than 11 years after Upendra bought 17 acres and 10 guntas of agricultural land in Tavarekere, the Sandalwood star is finally the ‘farmer’ he wants to be.
The actor had been battling the authorities who claimed he had broken the law under the Karnataka Land Reforms (KLR) Act, which (in 2005, when the land was bought) allowed only someone with an income below `2 lakh to be able to buy agricultural land.
In January this year, the High Court gave him the clean chit, giving him the benefit of last year’s amendment to the KLR Act, which increased the buyer’s income ceiling from `2 lakh to `25 lakh. Since the amendment had come into force with retrospective effect, the court ruled in Upendra’s favour.
On March 28, however, the HC issued a new order. While it still allowed Upendra to keep the land, now it was not because of the amendment to the law, but because the authorities were too late in initiating action against him.
The ceiling on the income did not come into question in the new order. The authorities initiated proceedings more than two years after Upendra purchased the land in 2005. By that time, the actor had taken a loan of Rs 35 lakh on the land to develop it, thus creating third-party interest in it.
This came to his rescue as the HC held that the revenue department could not confiscate his agricultural land.
The actor’s side
The case in the HC began in 2009. Upendra, aka BM Upendra Kumar, approached the court as “agriculturist cum cine artist”.
Upendra, in his petition, had said that he was a member of a Hindu Undivided Family (a legal entity), which was involved in agriculture in Koteswara village of Kundapur taluk. His family bought 17 acres 10 guntas in Byalalu village in Tavarekere on March 18, 2005, in his name. He was owner and ‘cultivator’ of the land.
The actor later took a loan of `35 lakh from Karnataka Bank to ‘develop’ the land by setting up a farmhouse, labour quarters, a temple and a bore well, among taking up other works.
The income condition
The trouble started soon after. He was served a notice by the authorities for violating the law under the KLR Act, which stated that an agricultural land could be bought only by someone whose income did not exceed `2 lakh a year.
Upendra had reportedly filed objection to the notice, saying his joint family “did not have any income in excess of `2 lakh a year”. But on June 26, 2009, the assistant commissioner passed an order that the purchase of land by Upendra was against the KLR Act, and directed that the land be seized by the state.
Upendra challenged this order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed his plea. The matter then went to the High Court in 2009.
In January this year, the HC had ruled in favour of Upendra. In 2015, the State government had amended the KLR Act. Instead of a maximum income of `2 lakh, persons with income up to `25 lakh could purchase agricultural land. The HC ruled that this amendment had retrospective effect.
On March 11, the January 5 order was withdrawn. The new order was issued on March 28. This order too went in favour of Upendra — but not on the grounds of the amendment to the KLR Act, but because of the delay the authorities made in taking action against him.
Delayed action
While Upendra bought the property in 2005, the authorities passed an order in September 2006, but forgot to serve him a notice. It was only on June 18, 2007, that they finally issued a notice on him, alleging that he had bought the land despite having an income of over `2 lakh.
The court said that since the action was not taken within reasonable time, Upendra should not be made to suffer for it. It was also argued that a third-party interest was created in the land as the actor had taken a loan from the bank during this time.
The prosecution, however, argued that just because the rule of law was not invoked within reasonable time, it should not be defeated because the KLR Act was a socially beneficial legislation that keeps the wealthy from cornering all the agricultural land. It was also argued that there was no rule that said what “reasonable time” was.
Citing several judgements, the HC, in its new order, said the authorities initiated action two years and three months from the date of the purchase. The delay was unreasonable considering Upendra’s conduct after the purchase. He had got the khatha of the land transferred in his name before the same tahsildar. He is a well-known
film star “and, therefore, if there was contravention of the provisions of the KLR Act, it is a glaring circumstance which would have come to the attention of the said authority”.
Before taking a loan from the bank, Upendra had also approached the assistant commissioner to ask if there were any proceedings pending against him under the KLR Act. The official had given an endorsement that there were no proceedings pending. But proceedings were initiated subsequently. And, so, the authorities were made to know more than once that Upendra had purchased the land.
The HC also did not buy the argument of the prosecution that the noble object of the Act would be defeated. It said, “If the state was passionate in upholding the rigour of the law, its officers are required to jealously guard against such transactions and should act with greater expedition.”
The HC said the action against Upendra was barred by time since he had created third-party interest in the land and invested money and effort in developing the land. Therefore, any action to take away the land from him “would result in a miscarriage of justice”.
How Upendra landed a sweet deal
* March 18, 2005: He buys the agricultural land
* March 10, 2006: Asst commissioner (AC) endorses 'no proceedings'
* June 26, 2009: AC orders forfeiture of land in favour of state
* Nov 3, 2009: Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upholds forfeiture of land
* Nov 2009: Actor approaches High Court of Karnataka
* Aug 14, 2015: Law amended; income ceiling for farmland made Rs 25 lakh
* Jan 5, 2016: HC rules in Upendra’s favour as the new law is retrospective
* March 11, 2016: HC withdraws order
* March 28, 2016: HC rules in his favour for delay caused by authorities
More than 11 years after Upendra bought 17 acres and 10 guntas of agricultural land in Tavarekere, the Sandalwood star is finally the ‘farmer’ he wants to be.
The actor had been battling the authorities who claimed he had broken the law under the Karnataka Land Reforms (KLR) Act, which (in 2005, when the land was bought) allowed only someone with an income below `2 lakh to be able to buy agricultural land.
In January this year, the High Court gave him the clean chit, giving him the benefit of last year’s amendment to the KLR Act, which increased the buyer’s income ceiling from `2 lakh to `25 lakh. Since the amendment had come into force with retrospective effect, the court ruled in Upendra’s favour.
On March 28, however, the HC issued a new order. While it still allowed Upendra to keep the land, now it was not because of the amendment to the law, but because the authorities were too late in initiating action against him.
The ceiling on the income did not come into question in the new order. The authorities initiated proceedings more than two years after Upendra purchased the land in 2005. By that time, the actor had taken a loan of Rs 35 lakh on the land to develop it, thus creating third-party interest in it.
This came to his rescue as the HC held that the revenue department could not confiscate his agricultural land.
The actor’s side
The case in the HC began in 2009. Upendra, aka BM Upendra Kumar, approached the court as “agriculturist cum cine artist”.
Upendra, in his petition, had said that he was a member of a Hindu Undivided Family (a legal entity), which was involved in agriculture in Koteswara village of Kundapur taluk. His family bought 17 acres 10 guntas in Byalalu village in Tavarekere on March 18, 2005, in his name. He was owner and ‘cultivator’ of the land.
The actor later took a loan of `35 lakh from Karnataka Bank to ‘develop’ the land by setting up a farmhouse, labour quarters, a temple and a bore well, among taking up other works.
The income condition
The trouble started soon after. He was served a notice by the authorities for violating the law under the KLR Act, which stated that an agricultural land could be bought only by someone whose income did not exceed `2 lakh a year.
Upendra had reportedly filed objection to the notice, saying his joint family “did not have any income in excess of `2 lakh a year”. But on June 26, 2009, the assistant commissioner passed an order that the purchase of land by Upendra was against the KLR Act, and directed that the land be seized by the state.
Upendra challenged this order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed his plea. The matter then went to the High Court in 2009.
In January this year, the HC had ruled in favour of Upendra. In 2015, the State government had amended the KLR Act. Instead of a maximum income of `2 lakh, persons with income up to `25 lakh could purchase agricultural land. The HC ruled that this amendment had retrospective effect.
On March 11, the January 5 order was withdrawn. The new order was issued on March 28. This order too went in favour of Upendra — but not on the grounds of the amendment to the KLR Act, but because of the delay the authorities made in taking action against him.
Delayed action
While Upendra bought the property in 2005, the authorities passed an order in September 2006, but forgot to serve him a notice. It was only on June 18, 2007, that they finally issued a notice on him, alleging that he had bought the land despite having an income of over `2 lakh.
The court said that since the action was not taken within reasonable time, Upendra should not be made to suffer for it. It was also argued that a third-party interest was created in the land as the actor had taken a loan from the bank during this time.
The prosecution, however, argued that just because the rule of law was not invoked within reasonable time, it should not be defeated because the KLR Act was a socially beneficial legislation that keeps the wealthy from cornering all the agricultural land. It was also argued that there was no rule that said what “reasonable time” was.
Citing several judgements, the HC, in its new order, said the authorities initiated action two years and three months from the date of the purchase. The delay was unreasonable considering Upendra’s conduct after the purchase. He had got the khatha of the land transferred in his name before the same tahsildar. He is a well-known
film star “and, therefore, if there was contravention of the provisions of the KLR Act, it is a glaring circumstance which would have come to the attention of the said authority”.
Before taking a loan from the bank, Upendra had also approached the assistant commissioner to ask if there were any proceedings pending against him under the KLR Act. The official had given an endorsement that there were no proceedings pending. But proceedings were initiated subsequently. And, so, the authorities were made to know more than once that Upendra had purchased the land.
The HC also did not buy the argument of the prosecution that the noble object of the Act would be defeated. It said, “If the state was passionate in upholding the rigour of the law, its officers are required to jealously guard against such transactions and should act with greater expedition.”
The HC said the action against Upendra was barred by time since he had created third-party interest in the land and invested money and effort in developing the land. Therefore, any action to take away the land from him “would result in a miscarriage of justice”.
How Upendra landed a sweet deal
* March 18, 2005: He buys the agricultural land
* March 10, 2006: Asst commissioner (AC) endorses 'no proceedings'
* June 26, 2009: AC orders forfeiture of land in favour of state
* Nov 3, 2009: Karnataka Appellate Tribunal upholds forfeiture of land
* Nov 2009: Actor approaches High Court of Karnataka
* Aug 14, 2015: Law amended; income ceiling for farmland made Rs 25 lakh
* Jan 5, 2016: HC rules in Upendra’s favour as the new law is retrospective
* March 11, 2016: HC withdraws order
* March 28, 2016: HC rules in his favour for delay caused by authorities
