D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS and their predecessors claim to be the purchasers of 1 acre each of land in Sy. No. 49 of Hirehalli Village as per two registered sale deeds dated 5-6-1968. The land in question was part of a land which had been granted in favour of one Rangaiah, a person belonging to scheduled Caste community in the year 1961 and it is the version of the petitioners that the grant was on collecting an upset price of Rs. 10/- per acre. The Saguvali Chit in respect of the land had been issued on 27-4-1965. It is from out of such a granted land that the said Sri rangaiah had sold the extent of 1 acre each to the predecessors of petitioners 1 and 2.

( 2 ) ON and after coming into force of the provisions of the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978, the original grantee applied to the Assistant commissioner under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act praying for invalidating the sale transaction and for restoration of the land to him. The Assistant Commissioner, who held an enquiry into the matter vide order dated 22-6-1994, copy at Annexure-A held that, the sale transactions were in violation of the conditions of the grant and as such they are null and void and directed for restoration of the land to the original grantee. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners have preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner. But, the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the appeal as per order dated 31-5-2001, copy at Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petitions have been filed.

( 3 ) SUBMISSION of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that, the authorities under the Act could not have entertained the application since the land in question had been granted on collection of the upset price and having regard to the relevant rules that govern such grants at the time when the land was granted to the grantees, on fixing and collecting an upset price, no condition can be imposed as per the ruling of Division Bench of this Court In Puttaveeraiah v State of Karnataka and Others, and this apart, the procedure that has been followed by the assistant Commissioner was totally in-contravention of the rules that no proper opportunity had been given to the purchasers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petitions have to be allowed and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing on be half of respondents 1 and 2 on the other hand submitted that, even as per the relevant Rule that prevailed at the time when the grant was made namely, Rule 43-G (4) which reads as under:"43-G (4) Where the grant is made free of cost, or is made at a price which is less than the full market value, the grant shall be subject to the condition that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land, after the grant". indicates that, a land which is granted cannot be alienated for a period of 15 years and in the instant case, as the sale transactions have taken place within 7 years from the original grant and within 3 years from the date of issue of Saguvali Chit, when the authorities had fixed a price of rs. 10/- collected per acre on the grantee, the transactions became void as it is in violation of the conditions of the grant, i. e. , sold within a period of 15 years from the date of this grant and the orders passed by the authorities is justified and does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

( 5 ) IT may be true, that in the course of passing of the order, the assistant Commissioner may not have strictly complied with the requirements of the rules and regulations. However, the question before this Court is, as to whether the orders passed by the statutory authorities call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document