The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of restoring possession of granted land to the original grantees or their legal heirs in cases of violation of terms of land grant.

P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of facts and law are involved in both these petitions, the same are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 25226 of 1990 is the purchaser of land measuring 5 acres 8 guntas in survey No. 87, situated at kunchanahalli, shimoga taluk and district. In this petition, he has prayed for quashing the Order dated 28th may, 1990, passed by the 1st respondent, confirming the Order, dated 23rd january, 1988, passed by the 2nd respondent. Copies of the orders passed by respondents-1 and 2 have been produced as annexures-a and b respectively.

( 3 ) WRIT petition No. 25607 of 1990 is filed by the grantee challenging the orders annexures-a and b, referred to above, to the extent the claim of the grantee-petitioner is rejected for restoration of possession. In this petition, he has prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent to restore possession of the land, which is the subject-matter of dispute in writ petition No. 25226 of 1990.

( 4 ) SRI m. r. rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 25226 of 1990, submitted that the orders impugned suffer from errors apparent on the face of the records in as much as both respondents-1 and 2 have failed to consider that the land in question was not sold in violation of the terms of the law governing grant of the land in question, as the land in question came to be sold by the grantee's son after more than 20 years from the date of grant. According to the learned counsel, the land in question was granted on 24th july, 1956, and the same came to be sold by the grantee's son to the petitioner on 29th december, 1977, and under these circumstances, the sale deed dated 20th july, 1967, conveying his right, title and interest in respect of the land in question in favour of one satyanarayana son of chinnadasappa, cannot be taken into account while considering the question as to whether the sale of the land in question was made in violation of either the terms of grant or the law governing the grant. He further submitted that since the land in question was sold for an upset price, the grantee was prohibited from alienating the land in question only for a period of 10 years from the date of grant; and even if the sale deed dated 20th july, 1967, is to be taken into account, since the land in question was sold after expiry of a period of 10 years, there is not violation of the terms of grant.

( 5 ) SRI siddagangaiah, learned government pleader, appearing for respondents and Sri h. s. sureshappa gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 25607 of 1990, submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders impugned, to the extent they declare that the sale of the land in question as null and void. However, they submitted that respondents-1 and 2 having rightly held that the sale of the land in question as null and void, have seriously erred in law in not directing that the possession of the said land should be handed over to the legal heir of the original grantee i. e. the petitioner in writ petition No. 25607 of 1990.

( 6 ) I am unable to accept the contentions of Sri m. r. rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No. 25226 of 1990. Section 4 (1) of the ACT provides that notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after commencement of the act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed nor be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the ACT confers power on the assistant commissioner to declare the transfer of granted land as null and void, and further empowers him to take possession of such land after evicting all the persons in possession ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document