The central legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition on alienation of granted lands and the requirement of obtaining previous permission of the Government for any transfer of such lands.

A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the appellant calls in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by her challenging the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 resuming the lands in favour of the grantee.

( 2 ) FEW facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: two pieces of land, one measuring 1 acre 33 guntas and another measuring 2 acres 22 guntas of Mangalaboesu Village, Sagar Taluk, were granted in favour of one Eeli Puttappa. The first grant of 1 acre and 33 guntas of land was in the year 1950-51 and the second of 2 acres and 22 guntas was in the year 1955-56. The actual dates of grant are not forthcoming from the records. Under the Darakhast rules prevailing at the time of first grant there was a total ban of alienation under Rule 43 (8) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. In the year 1953 of the rules were amended and under the amended Rule 43 (8) the total ban on alienation was removed and in its place the non-alienation clause for a period 20 years came to be introduced. Both the said lands were bought by one Jaganath Chowdary, the husband of the present appellant, on 27-12-1968. Nanjappa, the son of original grantee made an application to the Assistant Commissioner under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for resumption of the lands in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner resumed the lands in favour of the said Nanjappa and ordered the eviction of the present appellant from the said lands. The appeal therefrom to the Deputy Commissioner proving futile, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsels appearing for both sides.

( 4 ) THE impugned order of the learned Single Judge is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that it is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in G. N. Vemareddy v State of Karnataka and Others1, wherein it was held that unless the upset price fixed is waived off in full or in part, the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 43-G would not be attracted.

( 5 ) THE first of the grants having been made in the year 1950 it would be governed by the notification bearing No. 2828 LR 89-10-10, dated 30th December, 1938 by which Rule 43 (8) of the Karnataka Land Revenue rules was amended. The amended Rule reads thus:"occupancies granted to applicants belonging to depressed classes under Rule 43 (5) above and those granted by Government free of upset price or reduced upset price to poor and landless people of other communities or to religious or charitable institutions, shall not be alienated and the grantee shall execute Mutchalikas in the form prescribed by Government. This shall not, however, prevent lands granted to depressed classes under Rule 43 (5) being accepted as security for any loan which they may wish to obtain from Government or from a Co-operative Society for the bona fide purposes of improving the land". This rule was in force till 1953 when Rule 43 was again amended. The first grant being of the year 1950 it would be governed by Rule 43 (8) as amended by Notification No. 2828 LR 89-10-10, dated 30th December, 1938 which is extracted herein above. There is total ban on alienation of lands granted to depressed class free of price. The lands in this case was granted free of cost and, therefore, there is total ban on alienation.

( 6 ) INSOFAR as the second grant, it was made in the year 1955-56. Rule 43 (8) came to be amended on 4th August, 1953 vide Notification No. R 7594-604 L. R. 266-53-2 and it held the field till 1960 when it was again amended. The grant being of the year 1955-56, it would be covered by rule 43 (8) as amended by the aforesaid notification dated 4th August, 1953. The said rule reads:" (8) The grant of lands under sub-rules (1) and (5) persons belonging to depressed classes for an upset price or reduced upset price and to poor persons not owning

Click Here to Read the rest of this document