Violation of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act renders the land transfer null and void, regardless of grant conditions or land use conversion.

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petition by the widow of a person to whom had been granted an extent of 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 6 of Kempathimmanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community, in terms of grant order dated 6.1.1969. It appears the writ Petitioner had sold this land in terms of the sale deed dated 19.2.2001 in favour of the third Respondent .

2. Writ Petitioner getting wise after the event had applied to the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act], inter alia, claiming that the land which had been originally granted in favour of her husband in terms of grant order dated 6.1.1969, for which saguvali chit was issued on 7.2.1969, which in fact had also been got converted into for non-agricultural use in terms of the permission dated 31.1.2000 granted by the Deputy Commissioner, had been thereafter sold in terms of the sale deed dated 19.2.2001; that 'the transaction is to be invalidated in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, as prior permission under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act had not been obtained and for resumption and restitution of the land.

3. The Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the third Respondent , held an enquiry and found that the applicant as well as her husband-grantee are persons belonging to Nayaka community, as evidenced by the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar; that the land in question in fact had been granted under grow-more food scheme in terms of the saguvali chit dated 7.2.1969; that the record indicated collection of charges from the grantee at the rate of Rs. 10/- per acre and such land had been sought for conversion by application filed before the Deputy Commissioner, who had granted the permission in terms of the order dated 4.9.1996; that the period for conversion had been got extended up to 31.3.2000 and such land had been transferred on 19.2.2001 in terms of the sale deed in favour of the third Respondent .

4. On noticing such facts and circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner as being of the view that the land in question having lost its character as agricultural land and thereafter having been sold and particularly when the permission for conversion had been granted by the Deputy Commissioner who would have at that time examined the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Act also, and nevertheless having granted the permission was being also of the view that the subject land having been granted on collection of upset price, the application deserves to be rejected and accordingly dismissed the same in terms of his order dated 31.5.2002, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition.

5. The third Respondent being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner on re-examination of the whole thing, though it was contended before him that the transaction was hit not because of the violation of any of the conditions under the grant order itself, but because of the non-compliance of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, nevertheless, being of the view that as the records indicated the land was one granted under the provisions of Rule 43-J of the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 [for short, the Rules] and the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chikka Kukkegowda Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, ILR (1997) KAR 1753 wherein the Full Bench opined that in respect of grant made under Rule 43-J of the Rules, no condition could have been imposed as the very Rule did not provide for imposition of any such condition and therefore the provisions of the Act are not attracted, purporting to follow the opinion of the Full Bench, while upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal.

6. It is against these