SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Kar) 3

Karnataka High Court
PEDDA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 01-06-93
W.A. : 2088 of 1992

Advocates:
B.RUDRA GOWDA, S.R.NAYAK

Necessary findings must be recorded before declaring a land sale as void under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules.

Headnote:

Void Transaction - Land Grant - Mysore Land Revenue Rules - [Rule 43 of the Mysore Land Revenue Rules] - The court found that the assistant commissioner cannot declare the sale of the land granted under the provisions of the Rules as void unless specific findings are recorded, including whether the grant was made in favor of a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, whether the grant was on upset price or a free grant, and whether the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the rules. The court held that the orders of the assistant commissioner, the special deputy commissioner, and the learned single judge cannot be sustained due to the absence of necessary findings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the order declaring a land sale as void. The land was granted to a person who later sold it to the appellant. The assistant commissioner declared the sale as void, which was affirmed by the special deputy commissioner and upheld by the learned single judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained as they did not record necessary findings required for declaring the transaction of sale as void.

Issues: Validity of the orders passed by the assistant commissioner, the special deputy commissioner, and the learned single judge in declaring the land sale as void.

Ratio Decidendi: The assistant commissioner cannot declare the sale of the land granted under the provisions of the Rules as void unless specific findings are recorded, including whether the grant was made in favor of a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, whether the grant was on upset price or a free grant, and whether the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the rules.

Final Decision: The writ appeal is allowed, and the orders of the assistant commissioner, the special deputy commissioner, and the learned single judge are set aside. The case stands remitted to the assistant commissioner with a direction to decide the application within six months and in accordance with law.

K. A. SWAMI, CJ.

( 1 ) AT the stage of preliminary hearing respondents are served. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by Sri s. r. nayak, learned government advocate, who has also secured the records of the case. Respondent-4 died during the pendency of the appeal, and his l. rs. Have been brought on record and they have also been served with the notice. However, neither they are present nor represented through a counsel. As the appeal lies in a narrow compass, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order passed in W. P. no. 527 of 1987,dated 17-7-1990 by the learned single judge. Writ petition has been dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

( 3 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 27-4-1983passed by the assistant commissioner, shimoga sub-division, shimoga, in no. Rrc. Kr. 315 of 1982-83, and the order dated 5-12-1986 passed by the special deputy commissioner, shimoga district, shimoga in no. Sc. St. 26 of 1984-85. The assistant commissioner has declared the transaction of sale dated 30-7-1966 effected by the grantee of the land in favour of the appellant, as void. This order is confirmed by the special deputy commissioner.

( 4 ) THE facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether theorders passed by the assistant commissioner, the special deputy commissioner and also by the learned single judge are valid in law are as follows: the land bearing sy. No. 145/3 of hanumanthapura village, bhadravathi taluk, was granted on 23-6-1956 to one hanumanthappa, s/o hanumanthappa, of bhadravatbi taluk, under the provisions of the mysore land revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules' ). The grantee sold the land on 30-7-1966 to the appellant. After the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1984, the grantee made an application before the assistant commissioner for declaring that the sale was void because it was effected within the period of prohibition for alienation as contained in the rules. The appellant appeared before the assistant commissioner and filed his statement. However, in the statement, the appellant did not raise objections that the grant was not made in favour of the person belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and that the grant was on upset price and not on free of cost. The assistant commissioner also did not go into these questions.

( 5 ) AS already pointed out, the sale is declared as void in law, by the order dated 27-4-1983. In the appeal also, the special deputy commissioner has affirmed the order of the assistant commissioner. The learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there is no substance in the contention of the grantee that the order declaring the transaction as void, was invalid in law, and that the contention of the appellant that no sufficient opportunity was afforded to him, was also not correct. Before us, it is contended by Sri rudre gowda, learned counsel for the appellant, that whether the appellant had contested the proceeding or raised an objection or not it was All the more necessary for the assistant commissioner, while declaring the transaction as void, to record a finding as to whether the transaction of sale had taken place within the period prescribed by the Rules prohibiting the alienation of the land in question, and for that purpose the assistant commissioner was also required to decide whether the grant was on an upset price or on free of cost. If it were to be held that the grant was on an upset price, the period of prohibition was 10 years from the date of grant, and if it were to be held that the grant was a free grant, the period of prohibition was 15 years as per sub-rule (8) (a) of rule 43 of the mysore land revenue Rules as amended by the notification dated 6-7-1955 published in the mysore gazette on 14th july 1955.

(







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top