Back
Karnataka High Court
PRAKASHV - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-30-04
W.P. : 21473 of 2004
Constitution of India - Article 341 -Invalidation of sale -Land granted under Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 -Saguvali Chit showing conditions of grant -Hence, invalidation of sale proper -Reversal of order of Assistant Commissioner by Deputy Commissioner is improper.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: It is no doubt true that the original records were not forthcoming from the office of the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner who had waited for sufficient time for the arrival of the records found no point in indefinitely keeping the proceedings pending before him and has proceeded to consider the available material before him and has passed orders. The Assistant Commissioner had an occasion to examine the saguvali issue register extract; that it indicates grant was in terms of the order dated 7-6-1941 in favour of the original grantee namely Junjappa; that saguvali chit had been issued on 20-10-1943 and saguvali chit also recited that it was under dharkhast proceedings and subject to the conditions in terms of DD 20/40-41; that this indicates that it was a grant in favour of person belonging to depressed class; that the original grantee belonged to Adi Karnataka community and as such material before him was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the transfers of the year 1972 were in violation of the condition which is statutorily incorporated on such grants in terms of Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and as such it was necessary for him to invalidate the sale transaction.
Constitution of India -Invalidation of sale -Article 341 -Invalidation of sale -Land granted under Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 -Saguvali Chit showing conditions of grant -Hence, invalidation of sale proper -Reversal of order of Assistant Commissioner by Deputy Commissioner is improper. [D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: It is no doubt true that the original records were not forthcoming from the office of the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner who had waited for sufficient time for the arrival of the records found no point in indefinitely keeping the proceedings pending before him and has proceeded to consider the available material before him and has passed orders. The Assistant Commissioner had an occasion to examine the saguvali issue register extract; that it indicates grant was in terms of the order dated 7-6-1941 in favour of the original grantee namely Junjappa; that saguvali chit had been issued on 20-10-1943 and saguvali chit also recited that it was under dharkhast proceedings and subject to the conditions in terms of DD 20/40-41; that this indicates that it was a grant in favour of person belonging to depressed class; that the original grantee belonged to Adi Karnataka community and as such material before him was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the transfers of the year 1972 were in violation of the condition which is statutorily incorporated on such grants in terms of Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and as such it was necessary for him to invalidate the sale transaction.
Invalidation of sale of granted land
MYSORE LAND REVENUE CODE, 1888 - Rule 43(8) -Invalidation of sale of granted land -Land granted under the rule -Invalidation of sale -Land granted under Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 -Saguvali Chit showing conditions of grant -Hence, invalidation of sale proper -Reversal of order of Assistant Commissioner by Deputy Commissioner is improper.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: It is no doubt true that the original records were not forthcoming from the office of the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner who had waited for sufficient time for the arrival of the records found no point in indefinitely keeping the proceedings pending before him and has proceeded to consider the available material before him and has passed orders. The Assistant Commissioner had an occasion to examine the saguvali issue register extract; that it indicates grant was in terms of the order dated 7-6-1941 in favour of the original grantee namely Junjappa; that saguvali chit had been issued on 20-10-1943 and saguvali chit also recited that it was under dharkhast proceedings and subject to the conditions in terms of DD 20/40-41; that this indicates that it was a grant in favour of person belonging to depressed class; that the original grantee belonged to Adi Karnataka community and as such material before him was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the transfers of the year 1972 were in violation of the condition which is statutorily incorporated on such grants in terms of Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and as such it was necessary for him to invalidate the sale transaction.
Invalidation of sale
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 4 -Invalidation of sale -Land granted under Rule 43(8) of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 -Saguvali Chit showing conditions of grant -Hence, invalidation of sale proper -Reversal of order of Assistant Commissioner by Deputy Commissioner is improper to that extent.
[D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J]: It is no doubt true that the original records were not forthcoming from the office of the Tahsildar. The Assistant Commissioner who had waited for sufficient time for the arrival of the records found no point in indefinitely keeping the proceedings pending before him and has proceeded to consider the available material before him and has passed orders. The Assistant Commissioner had an occasion to examine the saguvali issue register extract; that it indicates grant was in terms of the order dated 7-6-1941 in favour of the original grantee namely Junjappa; that saguvali chit had been issued on 20-10-1943 and saguvali chit also recited that it was under dharkhast proceedings and subject to the conditions in terms of DD 20/40-41; that this indicates that it was a grant in favour of person belonging to depressed class; that the original grantee belonged to Adi Karnataka community and as such material before him was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the transfers of the year 1972 were in violation of the condition which is statutorily incorporated on such grants in terms of Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code and as such it was necessary for him to invalidate the sale transaction.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are by legal heirs of the person in whose favour 2 acres of land had been granted in Survey No. 7 of Herohalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, in terms of a grant Order dated 7-6-1941 granted under the depressed class darkhast proceedings and free of cost in favour of one Junjappa, son of Galappa. The saguvali chit in respect of this land had been issued on 20-10-1943.
( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner in both the petitions that the said land had been sold by Junjappa and his son in terms of two sale deeds dated 20-12-1972, one acre each in favour of one Lakshminarayana and shivanna. The said Lakshminarayana in turn had sold the land in favour of Chikka Hanumakka. It is such land which had been purchased by respondent 4 in W. P. No. 21473 of 2004 in terms of sale deed dated 20-6-1974 executed by Lakshminarayana. The petitioners had sought for invalidation of these sale transactions of the year 1972 both in favour of lakshminarayana and Shivanna by filing application under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978. The application came to be allowed in terms of the Order dated 24-9-2002 passed by the assistant Commissioner inter alia holding that the grant of the year 1941 followed by the issue of saguvali chit was a free grant in favour of a scheduled caste person belonging to Adi Karnataka community; that in terms of the relevant rules governing such grant i. e. , Rule 43 (8) of the rules under Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, as notified in the government Notification in No. LR 89-38-10, dated 31-12-1938; a land of this nature was subject to the condition that it should not be alienated for all times to come; that the grantee and his son had sold such land an extent of one acre each in favour of the said Lakshminarayana and shivanna; that the sale transaction are now voided in terms of the provisions of the Act as the sale was in violation of terms of the grant; that such land is required to be resumed to the State and restored to the grantee or his legal heirs.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by this order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the persons claiming under Lakshminarayana namely, Chikka Hanumakka as also Shivanna figuring as respondent 4 in W. P. No. 21473 of 2004 and w. P. No. 21475 of 2004 respectively preferred two separate appeals before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner who had occasion to look into the merits of the matter, though found that the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner was supported by sufficient material which was before the Assistant Commissioner, nevertheless allowed both the appeals and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the land granted in the year 1941 having been sold in the year 1972 i. e. , after a period of 27 years from the date of the grant, it cannot be said that the transfer is in violation of the terms of the grant, as the period of non-alienation was only 15 years from the date of the grant as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants.
( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by these appellate orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the original applicants before the Assistant Commissioner have come up with these two writ petitions.
( 5 ) I have heard Sri Siddagangaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Varadarajan, learned Counsel for the respondent 4-purchaser in each writ petition as also Sri M. G. Anjanamurthy, learned Government pleader for the Authorities under the Act. I have also perused the records of the Assistant Commissioner placed before the Court by the learned Government Pleader.
( 6 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Siddagangaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Commissioner has gone wrong in inventing the condition of 15 years as the period of non-alienation; that the grant itself was one with permanent non-alienation condition; that the relevant rule also say
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
