Section 79A & 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act — a buyer's primer

If you're buying agricultural land in Karnataka — or any property whose chain traces back to agricultural use, which includes a large fraction of urban Bengaluru plots — you'll see the phrase "Section 79A / 79B endorsement" in your documents. Here's what those provisions actually do and why missing the endorsement is one of the most common deal-breakers we see.

TL;DR

• Section 79A restricts agricultural-land purchase by persons whose annual non-agricultural income exceeds a threshold.
• Section 79B restricts agricultural-land purchase to agriculturists (with historical exceptions).
• The 2020 amendment (Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020) substantially relaxed these provisions — but transactions before 2020 still need to comply with the older regime, and the 2020 changes are not a free pass.
• Missing or incorrect 79A/79B endorsement makes the sale legally fragile and often torpedoes the buyer's home loan.
• PropertyRisk flags missing 79A/79B endorsement on every agricultural-origin land case.

Why these sections exist

The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 was post-independence land-redistribution legislation: cap the holdings of large landowners, redistribute to tillers, prevent re-concentration. Sections 79A and 79B were the gatekeepers — they restricted who could buy agricultural land, with the goal of ensuring agricultural land remained with agriculturists or persons whose primary livelihood was agriculture.

Section 79A — the income test

In its pre-2020 form, Section 79A barred persons or families whose annual income from non-agricultural sources exceeded a specified threshold (₹2 lakh, then ₹25 lakh after 2015) from acquiring agricultural land.

Effect on a buyer: a salaried professional in Bengaluru earning above the threshold — i.e. most working professionals — was statutorily ineligible to buy agricultural land in Karnataka. Many transactions worked around this with agriculturist-certificate routes that were either creative or, in some cases, outright fraudulent.

Section 79B — the agriculturist test

Section 79B held that only agriculturists (and certain enumerated classes — cooperative farming societies, religious institutions etc.) could acquire agricultural land. A non-agriculturist who acquired such land was deemed to be in violation, and the land could be vested in the State.

For ordinary urban buyers acquiring plots that had been carved out of agricultural land, this meant the chain of sale deeds had to either (a) trace back through agriculturist owners, (b) include a valid Section 95 / 79B exemption-conversion order, or (c) demonstrate the land was already converted to non-agricultural use before the buyer's chain began.

The 2020 amendment

The Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2020 substantially relaxed Sections 79A, 79B and 79C. Among the major changes:

• Income ceiling for purchasing agricultural land was effectively removed.
• The agriculturist-only requirement was relaxed.
• Concept of "tribunal approval" for land purchase under Section 81A was dispensed with for many transactions.

What the 2020 amendment did NOT do:

• It did not retroactively legalise transactions that violated 79A/79B before the amendment.
• It did not eliminate the need for Section 95 conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use.
• It did not eliminate the need for endorsement on the sale deed reflecting the eligibility position at the time of registration.

What "79A/79B endorsement" means in practice

At the time of registration, the sub-registrar examines the buyer's eligibility under 79A/79B (or, post-2020, the simplified eligibility framework) and either registers the deed with an endorsement reflecting compliance or refuses registration. A registered sale deed for agricultural-origin Karnataka land should carry such an endorsement.

The deal-breaker situation is when:

• Land was agricultural at the time of an earlier transfer in the chain
• That earlier transfer was registered without proper 79A/79B endorsement
• The land was never formally converted under Section 95
• A subsequent buyer (you) is now being sold the land as "non-agricultural"

In this scenario the chain of title is legally fragile: a future challenge could argue that the earlier transfer was void ab initio, which voids everything downstream — including your purchase. Banks know this and will reject the loan; experienced buyers' advocates will recommend walking away.

How to check the endorsement

1. Read the sale deed in full — look for explicit reference to Section 79A, 79B, and Section 95 conversion order.
2. Verify the conversion order separately. The DC's order under Section 95 is a standalone document; possession of the land doesn't imply it was issued.
3. Check the RTC's land classification. If it still reads "dry / wet / garden" but the seller calls it residential, conversion is incomplete.
4. For pre-2020 transactions in the chain, the agriculturist eligibility of the buyer is verifiable from records.
5. When in doubt, get a property advocate's opinion before paying advance.

How PropertyRisk handles 79A/79B

On every case where the document chain traces back to agricultural use, PropertyRisk:

• Detects whether the land's classification on the latest RTC is still agricultural
• Flags missing references to Section 79A / 79B / 95 in the sale deed
• Looks for an attached conversion order document — and flags its absence
• Cross-checks the dates of the chain against the 2020 amendment threshold so the right-era rules apply
• Highlights the issue with severity = high and a recommendation to walk away or get an advocate's review before proceeding

When to walk away vs. fix

Walk away when:

• The chain of title has multiple unfixed 79A/79B violations
• The seller can't produce the original Section 95 conversion order
• The price doesn't reflect the legal risk you'd be taking on

Consider fixing when:

• The chain has only minor procedural lapses on the seller's side that can be regularised pre-registration
• The conversion order exists but the sale deed didn't reference it; an advocate-drafted rectification deed can paper this over
• The seller is willing to bear the regularisation cost and put it in writing

Want to verify your Karnataka property's 79A/79B status? Run your first PropertyRisk case free. Related reading: B-Khata vs A-Khata.