S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High court Government Pleader of the State (respondents 1 to 3 ).

( 2 ) THOUGH the legal representatives of respondent 4 are served, but have remained unrepresented. Since the matter is old and the case is coming up regularly both in warning list and the regular hearing list, without further waiting for their appearance, with the assistance of learned High Court Government Pleader, the matter is taken up for final consideration as it involves pure question of law.

( 3 ) THE subject-matter of the writ petition is an agricultural land bearing S. No. 285 measuring 11 guntas situated at Haladipur Village in honnavar Taluka. One Gouri d/o Masti Mukri, now represented by the l. Rs. respondents 4 (a) to 4 (g) was the tenant of the land in question.

( 4 ) AFTER coming into force the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Act 1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K. L. R. Act'), the said Gouri filed an application in Form 7 before the Land Tribunal for conferment of occupancy rights. After holding due enquiry the Land tribunal conferred the occupancy rights and subsequently on 21st June, 1981 occupancy certificate in Form 10 was also issued. In pursuance of the same mutation Entry No. 3790 also came to be effected. After the death of said Gouri, one Masti Jatti succeeded to the estate (land) and on 9-8-1996 he sold the same in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner intimated the sale to the concerned Tahsildar for necessary changes in the revenue records.

( 5 ) AT that stage thinking that the sale was in contravention of the land Grant Rules and the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the K. P. T. C. L. Act'), suo motu proceedings were initiated for annulment of the sale and also for the resumption and restoration proceedings. On receipt of the notice the petitioner appeared before the Assistant commissioner and filed his detailed written objections inter alia contending that he has purchased the land from its owner after the mandatory/prohibitory period of fifteen years as per the K. L. R. Act, is over and as such the provisions of K. P. T. C. L. Act are not attracted. It was also contended that since there was no grant in strict sense under any of the provisions of Land Revenue Act or Land Grant Rules, etc. , there is no question of applying the provisions of the Act.

( 6 ) THE Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order dated 30th june, 1998 rejected the contention only on the ground that the original grantee belongs to Scheduled Caste/scheduled. Tribe and as the sale has taken place after coming into force of the Act, the sale is void and accordingly he set aside the sale and order for restoration. This order came to be affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner by the order dated 12th October, 1998. Challenging both these orders the present writ petition is filed.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended ,that both the authorities have illegally and erroneously construed that there was a grant in favour of the fourth respondent and only because he belonged to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe the provisions of the k. P. T. C. L. Act are attracted. It is contended that since Gouri was conferred with occupancy rights under the provisions of the K. L. R. Act, the same is not equal to the grants made under the Land Revenue Act. It is submitted that since objects of conferring occupancy rights and grant of land are totally different, the application of the provisions of K. P. T. C. L. Act is illegal and liable to be set aside.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader argued in support of the impugned orders to contend that as the original grantee was also belonging to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe, the sale of land in dispute though conferred under KL. R. Act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document