The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the non-alienation condition under Rule 9(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 applies to all grantees, irrespective of the upset price paid, and any transfer in violation of this condition is illegal and null and void.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THESE Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the second purchasers of land in dispute. That according to the petitioners case as pleaded in the Writ petitions, respondents-4 to 9 were grantees of land in dispute. That the respondents-4 to 9 sold the aforesaid land to one Avalkondappa by registered Sale Deed. That the petitioners allege to have purchased the Land from said Avalkondappa the original purchaser of land from respondents-4 to 9. According to the petitioners case Respondents-4 to 9 were grantees of land on payment of the upset price and they have sold the same land to one Avalakondappa vide registered sale deed. Thereafter two petitioners purchased the property in dispute in the proportion as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim that after having purchased the land they planted coconut and fruit bearing trees and spent lot of money for raising certain other crops. According to the petitioners respondents 4 to 9 filed an application before the 3rd respondent namely Assistant Commissioner with the allegations to the effect that they belonged to Scheduled Caste Community and they have been grantees of the land, The land had been sold by them to the petitioners but the sale is in violation of the conditions of grant and as such they sought restoration of the possession of the land in their favour. This application was filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka SC and st (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978. The petitioners case is that on notice being served on them, the petitioners put in their appearance before the Assistant Commissioner and their case has been to the effect that if the land has been granted to Respondents-4 to 9 for an upset price there was no condition prohibiting the alienation of the said land. The petitioners further averred that they have also brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner the fact of improvement which have been carried on by the petitioners in the said land. That vide order dated 23. 11. 1991 the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application of respondents-4 to 9. After having taken the view that the transaction of sale was violative of the condition which prohibits alienation of the land for a period of 15 years and as such the transaction of sale in favour of Sri Avalakondappa as well as in favour of the present petitioners was illegal or null and void.

( 3 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 5 (a) of the Karnataka Act No. 2/79, challenging the order of the Assistant commissioner dated 23. 11. 1991. By his order dated October 12, 1994 the Deputy commissioner, Bangalore Rural District dismissed the petitioners appeal and affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. After having taken the view that though Rule 9 provided for and imposed the non-alienation condition of 15 years in all cases of land grant but in spite of that condition the transfer has been made by the grantees and so the transfer has been illegal or null and void.

( 4 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the Judgment and order dated October, 12 1994, whereby the deputy Commissioner affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23. 11. 1991 (23. 12. 1991) case No. LND SC ST5/80-81, the petitioners have filed these Petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Notice has been accepted by learned Government pleader on behalf of Respondents-1 to 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at great length.

( 5 ) SRI Devanand, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that the order of the assistant Commissioner as well as of the Deputy Commissioner suffers from jurisdictional error and error of law apparent on the face of the record, to the effect that inspite of the fact that the land was granted to Respondents-4 to 9 on full payment of upset price and as such there was no c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document