The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities must follow the legal procedure for cancelling the grant itself before initiating proceedings for correction of revenue entries, and an indirect cancellation of the grant by changing the mutation entry is impermissible in law.

( 1 ) THE appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 19. 7. 1999 passed by the Learned Single Judge, who did not find any error in the order dated 31. 1. 1997 (Annexure 'n') passed by the respondent special Deputy Commissioner, who had directed for cancellation of names of the appellants in the revenue records and restoration of the names of the original grantees.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to certain extent of land in Sy. No. 46 of Kaggaiipura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. These lands were granted to various persons as set out in the schedule to the order of grant with extent of grants. The grants were made under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (in short the 'rules') framed under the provisions of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 (in short the 'act' ). The appellants are the purchasers of the land in question from some of such grantees for consideration under the registered sale deeds.

( 3 ) IT appears that after purchase of the land in question, the appellants got their names mutated in revenue records as per the provisions contained under Section 128 of the Act. Subsequently, by the order dated 31. 1. 1997 purported to have been passed under section 136 (3) of the Act after notice to the appellants, their names had been directed to be cancelled in the revenue records and names of the original grantees were directed to be restored. The reason assigned in the order is that since the appellants and some other similarly situated persons had purchased the land in question in violation of non-alienation clause, as incorporated in the grant made to the original grantees, therefore they have not acquired any valid title and therefore their names could not have been mutated in the revenue records.

( 4 ) IN the present case, admittedly, the grants made in favour of the original grantees have not been cancelled by any competent authority though such a power lies with them under Rule 9 (1) (i) and (v) of the Rules which reads thus. 9. Conditions of grant:- (1) The grant of lands under these rules for Agricultural purposes shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:- (i) the grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of fifteen years from the date of taking possession: (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) for contravention of any of the above conditions the grant shall be liable to be cancelled and resumed to government free from all encumbrances by the authority granting the land;

( 5 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of SIDDAIAH vs HUTCHAMMA has held that. "although Government is competent to resume the land under the terms of the Rules for a breach of prohibition against alienation within a specified period, such resumption is not compulsory or automatic and the alienee from the grantee did acquire a title to the land which would be put an end to, only if action for resumption was taken by the Government or its officers".

( 6 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by one of us (G. C. Bharuka J) in the case of GAVl SIDDE GOWDA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA and in DAKSHAYANAMMA vs KAT.

( 7 ) IF the contention of the respondent revenue authorities that alienation in favour of the appellants were made in violation of the non-alienation clause of the grant is correct, then they ought to have restored to the above Rule 9 of the Rules for cancellation of the grant itself and only thereafter they could have initiated proceedings under Section 136 (3) of the Act for correction of the revenue entries. But, without cancelling the grant, they could not have adopted indirect way of cancelling the grant by changing the mutation entry. This is ex facie impermissible in law.

( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the order dated 19. 3. 1997 (Annexure 'n') passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner is quashed and the order dated 19. 7. 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 9582- 9589/1997 is set aside. Anyhow, it is left open for the appropriate authorities to initiat