VIKRAMAJIT SEN. C.J. (Oral):

1. By case No. LND.SCS.11/2001-02, the petitioner (respondent no. 12 before us) initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of land bearing Sy. No. 192 admeasuring 4-00 acres in Maragal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk.

2. The Assistant Commissioner noted that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents violated section 4 (1) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act’) Accordingly, he ordered the eviction of the occupants of lands in question under Section 5(1) of the said Act. The appellant before us appears to have purchased the land from Sri K.V. Anajanappa and K. Venktaramappa (respondents 1 and 2 before the Assistant Commissioner and respondents nos. 8 and 7 before us).

3. The appellant thereafter, field an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar incase No. RA/SC.ST/21/2004-05, This appeal came to be allowed on the grounds that the grantee of the saguwali Chit i.e. petitioner-Venkteshappa had paid a price of Rs.195/- which reflected and corresponded to the upset price of the land. That being so, it was the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner vide orders dated 17.12.2008 that the land in question was freely transferable. The original grantee/petitioner-Sri Venkateshappa, thereupon filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

4. The learned Single judge has noted that, the land was granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community vide saguwali Chit issued on 05.07.1977.This grant contained a non-alienation clause for period of 15 years. The transaction of sale between the petitioner-Venkateshappa with K.V. Venkataramappa and K.V.Anjanappa (respondents nos.7 & 8) took place within the said period of 15 years. We may clarify, the transaction was between the petitioner and above respondents on 29.09.1977 and further alienations have taken place. The learned Single judge has also opined that the collection of Rs.195/- could not possibly partake of the nature of an upset price.

5. We are in entire agreement with the learned Single judge. The matter has been considered very recently by a Division Bench, in the cases, D.Kariyappa vs. Thimmabovi (Writ Appeal no.2198/2011 DD 5.12.2011), Srinivas G vs. Harish Kumar (WA 15234/2011 DD 2.12.2011). Chandra Naik vs. States of Karnataka (WA No 16380/2011 DD 10.11.2011) the Honourable Supreme Court has clarified in Chinde Gowda vs. Puttamma (2007) 12 SCC 618;2008(2) kar.L.J.460(SC) that, it is only the grantee who has locus standi to contend that a non-alienation clause in a Grant is unfair and illegal for the reason that the market price of the land has actually been paid. It is for these manifold consideration that we hold that subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to contend that upset price had been paid by the original grantee and therefore, the non-alienation Clause was liable to be struck down.

6. Infraction of Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka SC & ST (P.T.C.L.) Rules. 1979 is contended before us, which however has no substance. On the relevant date. When the proceeding had commenced before the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner had arrayed the transferees in possession at the relevant time, as respondents. Subsequent alienations/sale/transfers of possession would not be required to be impleaded as such persons step into the shoes of their predecessors in interest. Furthermore, if such persons were to be formally impleaded by the original grantee. His interests and claims may be continuously delayed or jeopardized by subsequent alienations. It is for subsequent parties to watch and protect their interests.

7. In the instant case, the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, commenced in the year 2001. The Assistant Commissioner passed orders on 18/12