(This Writ appeal is filed U/S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act Praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No.8417/2008 dated 23/6/08.)

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.

This writ appeal is by the unsuccessful petitioners in Writ Petition No.8417/2008 being aggrieved by the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District dated 21.1.2008 and the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.10.2005 declaring the sale transaction made in respect of 5 acres of dry land in Sy.No.48 of Sonnenahalli village, Tiputur Taluk, Tumkur District by the husband of the third respondent herein in favour of the appellant/writ petitioners as null and void and consequentially directing resumption and restoration of the said property in favour of third respondent.

2.1. The undisputed facts of the case are:

Dry land of an extent of 5 acres located in Sy.No.48 of Sonnenahalli village, Tiptur Taluk was granted under Rule 43(6) (a) (ii) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code to the husband of the third respondent herein on 17.1.1960 for a reduced upset price of Rs.25/- per acre.

2.2. Rule 43 (6) (a) ii) reads as hereunder:

“6(a) (ii) – Where the grant is made for an upset price or for a reduced upset price, that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of ten years from the date of the grant.”

2.3. Though the said land was granted on 17.1.1960 to the husband of the third respondent, he had not chosen to pay the said reduced upset price namely, Rs.125/- for the entire 5 acres of land. But he paid the said amount only on 30.12.1974 with a bond fee of Rs.20/- and thereafter, saguvali chit was issued to the husband of the third respondent on 14.11.1977. Of course, there is a delay in issuing saguvali chit in favour of husband of the third respondent. While issuing the saguvali chit on 14.11.1977, the Tahsildar inserted a condition in the saguvali chit to the effect that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of saguvali chit, i.e. 14.11.1977. However, in the meanwhile, the husband of the third respondent had already sold the impugned land by sale deed dated 31.12.1974 to the appellants/writ petitioners.

3. The condition No.8 to the saguvali chit referred to above implanted by the Tahsildar, therefore, raised a controversy which is sought to be resolved in the above appeal, namely,-

(i) Whether the sale executed on 31.12.1974 subsequent to the payment of upset price on 14.11.1977 is liable to be held as null and void in view of condition of No.8 referred to above? or,

(ii) Whether treating the grant from the date of issue of saguvali chit i.e. 14.11.1977 or treating the grant as on 17.1.1960 and still relying on condition No.8 imposed in the saguvali chit dated 14.11.1977 to date back to 17.1.1960 and thereby holding that the impugned sale dated 31.12.1974 as null and void; or

(iii) Whether treating the grant as one made free of cost under Rule 6 (a) (i) or as one made for upset price or for a reduced upset price under Rule 6(a) (ii) and the saguvali chit dated 14.11.1977 to date back to 17.1.1960 and holding that the sale dated 31.12.1974 is not null and void?

4.1. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of T.Munivenkatappa V. Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and Others reported in 1992(4) KLJ 36, in a case where the grant was free and the grantee sold it to a third party before the issuance of saguvali chit, held, that possession takes him back to the date of grant.

4.2. That apart, even though, the sagavali chit was issued on 14.11.1977, despite the fact that the husband of the third respondent paid the reduced upset price on 30.12.1974, the possession of the husband of the third respondent of the land dates back to the date of grant, namely, on 17.1.1960.

5. From the above undisputed facts, it cannot be said that the impugned grant in favour of the husband of the third respondent is not a grant made free of cost at