( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-3-1998 (An-nexure-B to the writ petition) whereby the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Assistant commissioner, Davangere Sub-Division, Davangere. The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 10-3-1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as order dated 26-7-1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that, land bearing Sy. No. 24 (new No. 75) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Sulthanipura, Maikonda Hobli, Davangere Taluk and District, was granted in favour of respondent 3 on 8-6-1954. There was a condition in the grant itself prohibiting the alienation of the granted land for ten years' period. The respondent 3, according to the petitioner, sold the land to the present petitioner under registered sale-deed dated 24-3-1970 and the petitioner claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land since the date of sale or alienation thereof in his favour by the respondent 3. The proceedings under Section 5 were initiated on the report of the Tahsildar in the year 1994 under Section 5 of the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. Show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the petitioner who filed his objections. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 26-7-1997 declared the alienation made by the grantee of the granted land in favour of the petitioner to be hit by Section 4 and to be null and void. The petitioner who is the purchaser preferred an appeal under Section 5-A namely S. C. PTL. 5 of 1997-98. The Deputy commissioner-respondent 1 by his order dated 10-3-1998 dismissed the petitioner's. e. , purchaser's appeal. The petitioner having felt aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner has come up before this Court by petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. L. Prenia Kumar and the learned government Counsel Sri V. Jayaram for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri P. Dananjaya, learned counsel for respondent 3.

( 4 ) SRI Prenia Kumar submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 acted illegally in declaring the deed of transfer dated 24-3-1970 to be illegal and null and void on the basis of Section 4 (1) of the Act. The learned Counsel contended that the transfer made by the grantee of the granted land had been made after the expiry of the period often years which was the period for operation of prohibition against transfer under the terms of the grant. He submitted as grant was made in 1954 and transfer had been made in March 1970, when almost 16 years have passed. So there was no bar against transfer and the transfer could not be held to be void under Section 4.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents it has been contended by the learned Government Counsel and respondents' Counsel that under the grant ten years period might have been mentioned. But as per relevant law and rules as prevailing in 1974 the bar against transfer was to operate for a period of 20 years from the date of grant. Reference has been made to notification dated 4-8-1953 and to Rule 43 (g) under that notification and it has been contended whether the grant has been for upset price. The rule provided that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 20 years. The learned Counsel for the respondents as well as the learned Government counsel contended that this rule did apply in 1954. So prohibition against alienation of land granted under the grant in this case was for 20 years and so was hit by the rules. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that Section 4 (1) declares any alienation of granted land in contravention to the terms of law or of grant or of sub-section (2) shall be void. So it was rightly held to be null and void.

( 6 ) IN reply to the cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document