P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the Order dated 25th september, 1989, passed by the second respondent confirming the Order dated 3rd august, 1989 passed by the first respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), seeking for declaration that the sale of the land measuring 277 7/9 sq. yards in veeranahalli village, kasaba hobli, hassan taluk made by the petitioner to the third respondent by means of registered sale deed dated 31-11-1970 and subsequent sale of the said land made by the third respondent in favour of the 5th respondent as null and void. Copies of the Order passed by respondents 1 and 2 have been produced as annexures-'b' and 'c' to this petition.

( 2 ) SRI o. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in question was granted to the petitioner on 10th january, 1956 and the terms of the grant Order prohibited the alienation of the said land for ever and since the petitioner has sold the said land by means of registered sale deed dated 31st november, 1970 in contravention of the terms of the grant, the first respondent ought to have declared the sale of the land in question as null and void and directed resumption of the said land to the petitioner. He submitted that sub-rule (6) (a) (i) of rule 43 (1) of the land revenue rules which governed the grant of land in question prohibits the alienation of the land for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant and since the land in question was sold within 15 years from the date of the grant apart from the prohibition contained in the Order of grant that the land in question should not be alienated for ever, the respondents 1 and 2 ought to have held that the land in question was sold in violation of the law providing for the grant of land in question. According to the learned counsel, the land in question was a free grant made to the petitioner as per the grant Order dated 10th january, 1956, a copy of which has been produced as annexure-a. He further submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents solely on the ground that the land in question is a house site and as such the provisions of the ACT cannot be made applicable. According to the learned counsel this finding is erroneous in law as the ACT does not make any differences whether the granted land is a house site or an agricultural land.

( 3 ) SRI siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the ACT does not make any distinction between a house site and any other land, and the provisions of the ACT are applicable irrespective of the nature of the land, whether it is an agricultural land or a non-agricultural land including house sites.

( 4 ) SRI d. g. suryakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders impugned. According to Sri kumar, the finding recorded by the respondents 1 and 2 that the provisions of the ACT will not apply so far as the house site is concerned is fully justified. Sri surya kumar, submitted that the provisions of the ACT will not apply both in respect of house sites and also non-agricultural lands and the ACT is applicable only in respect of agricultural lands which are granted by the government. He further submitted that at any event of the matter, the land in question was granted/sold to the petitioner for an upset price and therefore the petitioner was prohibited from alienating the land in question only for a period of 10 years from the date of the grant as provided under sub-rule (6xa) (ii) of rule 43 (1) of the rules which governed the grant of land in question and since the land in question came to be sold after 14 years from the date of the grant, the provis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document