IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.D. DINAKARAN,V.G. SABHAHIT
Gangamma - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 1364 of 2008 (SC-ST)
Decided On : 11/07/2008
P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.
The unsuccessful writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 14216 of 2005 are the appellants herein. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one Sanjeevaiah who had purchased the agricultural land to an extent of 5 acres located in Sy. No. 1/1 in Nagegowdana Byala, Turuvekere Taluk, Tunrkur District from one Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah a member of the Scheduled Caste in whose favour the said lands were granted by proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in No. DD/Dis/1240/54-55, dated 9-1-1956 under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) on condition that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant. That apart Section 4 of the Act also imposed a prohibition of transfer of the granted lands and the same reads as follows.
"4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no light, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority".
2. The said grantee Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah sold 3 acres of land under a registered sale deed dated 18-7-1965 which was registered as document Nos. 207365 and 207366, dated 20-9-1965 in favour of one Sanjeevaiah who is now represented by the petitioners-appellants herein and also sold 2 acres of land by sale deed dated 24-2-1965 in favour of one Eranna Gowda. Both the sale deeds are prohibited in law as the same are contrary to the conditions of grant and also Section 4 of the Act. The legal representatives of the original grantee Mudlaiah s/o Kempaiah who are the respondents 3 to 5 herein, filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the impugned lands and restoration of the same to the appellants under Section 5 of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner after due notice to the purchasers/their legal representatives inquired into the matter and passed an order on 22-6-2000 holding that both the sales are illegal as they are prohibited under Section 4 of the Act and have to be restored to the original grantee, passed an order of resumption in favour of respondents 3 to 5 and also permitted to transfer the khatha of the said lands in favour of respondents 3 to 5. Against the said order dated 22-6-2000 of the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur by his order dated 28-3-2008. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners herein who are the legal representatives of Sanjeevaiah alone took an appeal with regard to the purchase of 3 acres of land from Mudlaiah. The legal representatives of Eranna Gowda had not challenged the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and therefore the same became final insofar as the legal representatives of Eranna Gowda are concerned.
3. In the appeal the petitioners herein also incidentally took the plea of adverse possession for the first time. However, no evidence was adduced in the regard. The Deputy Commissioner therefore by order dated 28-3-2005, of course after hearing the parties found that the petitioners have not placed the plea of adverse possession before the Assistant Commissioner and therefore they cannot find fault with the order of the Assistant Commission
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.