Back
Karnataka High Court
DYAVAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 03-03-05
W.P. : 53525 of 2003
Interference with acquisition
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Section 4(1) - Interference with acquisition - Acquisition of granted land - Land granted free of cost was alienated - Land acquired by Government - Compensation paid to alienee - Alienation declared void - Interference with acquisition under resumption proceedings - Held, it is not a matter which requires examination by the court in a challenge made to the order of resumption.
Constitution of India - Interference with acquisition - Articles 226 & 227 - Interference with acquisition - Acquisition of granted land - Land granted free of cost was alienated - Land acquired by Government - Compensation paid to alienee - Alienation declared void - Interference with acquisition under resumption proceedings - Held, it is not a matter which requires examination by the court in a challenge made to the order of resumption. [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J]:
Case Referred:
Distinguished:1998(6) Kar. LL.J 221 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar 3849 (FB): AIR 1999 Kant 1 (FB).
Interference with acquisition proceedings
Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 - Interference with acquisition - Acquisition of granted land - Land granted free of cost was alienated - Land acquired by Government - Compensation paid to alienee - Alienation declared void - Interference with acquisition under resumption proceedings - Held, it is not a matter which requires examination by the court in a challenge made to the order of resumption.
Cases Referred:
Distinguished:1998(6) Kar. LL.J 221 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar 3849 (FB): AIR 1999 Kant 1 (FB)
Alienation of land granted to a member or scheduled caste
Constitution of India - Article 341 - Alienation of land granted to a member or scheduled caste - Land granted free of cost under Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 - Part of land sold within prohibitory period and part of it was sold after the prohibitory period but without obtaining prior permission from the Government - Appellate authority ordered resumption - Held, proper.
Cases Referred:
Distinguished:
1998(6) Kar. LL.J 221 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar 3849 (FB): AIR 1999 Kant 1 (FB).
Alienation of granted land
MYSORE LAND REVENUE CODE, 1888 - Rule 43 - Alienation of granted land - Land granted under the rule -Part of land sold within prohibitory period and part of it was sold after the prohibitory period but without obtaining prior permission from the Government - Appellate authority ordered resumption - Held, proper.
Case Referred:
Distinguished:1998(6) Kar. L.J 221 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar3849 (FB): AIR 1999 Kant 1 (FB).
Alienation of granted land
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 4 - Alienation of granted land - Land granted under Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 free of Cost - Part of land sold within prohibitory period and part of it was sold after the prohibitory period but without obtaining prior permission from the Government - Appellate authority ordered resumption -Held, proper.
Case Referred: Distinguished:1998(6) Kar. LL.J 221 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar 3849 (FB): AIR 1999 Kant 1 (FB).
Alienation of granted land
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 4 - Alienation of granted land - Land granted under Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 free of Cost - Part of land sold within prohibitory period and part of it was sold after the prohibitory period but without obtaining prior permission from the Government - Appellate authority ordered resumption -Held, proper.
Case Referred: Distinguished:1998(6) Kar. LL.J 221 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar 3849 (FB): AIR 1999 Kant 1 (FB).
Validity of order of appellate authority
KARNATAKA SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 - Section 5-A - Validity of order of appellate authority - Absence of grantee s heir - Alienee and his counsel present - Deputy Commissioner considered their contentions and proceeded to dismiss the appeal on merits - It does not make any difference as to whether the appellant heir of grantee was present or not.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is by a purchaser who had purchased an extent of 1 acre of land in terms of sale deed dated 4-3-1970 of a land that had been originally granted free of cost in favour of a person belonging to scheduled Caste Community in terms of grant order dated 21-12-1955.
( 2 ) UNDER the grant order, an extent of 2 acres had been granted in favour of one Sri Hanumappa, out of which an extent of 1 acre had came to be sold to the father of the petitioner in terms of sale deed dated 4-3-1970 and another extent of land also had been sold in the year 1995.
( 3 ) THE legal heir of Sri Hanumappa viz. , Dasappa had filed a case before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 praying for invalidation of the sale transaction, for resumption of land to the State and for restitution in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the purchaser and held an enquiry and in terms of his order dated -12-2002 copy at annexure-F concluded that the sale transaction of the year 1995 should be held as invalid as this transaction had not been preceded by permission of the Government for such sale, nevertheless, saved the transaction of 1970 being of the view that the sale having taken prior to the provisions of the SC and ST Act coming into force, it is saved and declined to interfere with the sale transaction of the year 1970.
( 4 ) THE aggrieved applicant had preferred an appeal to the Deputy commissioner under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The Deputy Commissioner examined the matter and found that the land had been granted free of cost, that it had been saddled with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years and as the transaction was of the year 1970 which was within this period, the said sale was in violation of the condition, accordingly, the provisions of the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act necessarily attracted and for such reasons, allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the Assistant commissioner in rejecting the application for invalidating the sale transaction of the year 1970 and held that the transaction is hit by section 4 of the Act and directed the Assistant Commissioner to take action for resumption of this one acre and also for restitution, etc.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition is filed.
( 6 ) SRI Sathyanarayana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has put forth a two-fold contention. It is firstly urged that the land had been granted at an upset price, that if the grant is for an upset price, under the relevant Rules governing the grant at that point of time, the condition for non-alienation can only be for a period of ten years, that the sale transaction being after the expiry of this period of ten years sale, is not one in violation of the terms of grant and accordingly, the order of the Assistant Commissioner rejecting the application for invalidating the sale transaction in favour of the father of the petitioner was a proper order and did not call for interference by the Deputy commissioner and therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner should be set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner be restored.
( 7 ) THE second contention urged is that when the Deputy commissioner had taken up the matter for disposal, he has specifically noticed that neither the appellant nor his Counsel was present but the learned Counsel for the respondent therein/petitioner before this Court had submitted that the Deputy Commissioner may proceed to pass order based on the argument and written submissions that had been filed on behalf of the respondent. Nevertheless, the Deputy Commissioner has proceeded to pass an order on merits of the matter in t
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
