ORDER :

The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 25.05.2011 and the Deputy Commissioner dated 17.07.2018, whereby both the Authorities in unison have held that the sale to be in violation of the Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short) and resumed the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of writ petition are that, the land was granted on 20.08.1960 to one Puttaiah with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The original grantee sold the land to the husband of the petitioner on 10.12.2001. After the sale of land, the State has acquired the lands of the petitioner in the year 2009 and handed it over to the KIADB for development. The legal heirs of the original grantee filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner on 19.06.2009 contending that the sale was in violation of Section 4(2) of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner accepting the said claim holding that prior permission of the Government was not taken before selling the granted land, notwithstanding the fact that the land was sold beyond a period of condition of non-alienation, restored the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 5(A) of the said Act, which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 17.07.2018 affirming the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. It is the aforesaid orders that are called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. H. Ashok Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel, Sri. N. Jagadish Baliga, appearing for respondent No.1, the learned HCGP Smt. Savithramma, appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned counsel, Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, appearing for respondent No.5.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said Act itself makes it clear that no permission need be sought once the period of condition of non-alienation was over. The period of non-alienation as stipulated in the grant was 15 years in the case of the original grantee and the grant was of the year 1960 and the sale is 41 years after the grant i.e., 10.12.2001 and would submit that there is no illegality in the sale and the orders of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are erroneous.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State and the legal heirs of the original grantee in unison would submit that the land is sold after the said Act coming into force on 10.12.2001 and seeking permission of the Government was mandatory on the part of the legal heirs of the original grantee.

7. Sri. B.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the KIADB which is a party, 5th respondent herein submits that the land is acquired by the State Government and is handed over to the KIADB for development.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

9. The admitted facts are that the land was granted on 20.08.2016 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. After the death of the original grantee, the legal heirs of the original grantee sold the land in favour of the present petitioner on 10.12.2001. After the sale, the State Government acquired the land and handed it over to the KIADB for development.

10. The legal heirs of the original grantee, who had sold the land in favour of the present petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land on 19.06.2009. During the pendency of the application for restoration before the Assistant Commissioner, the State Government issued a notification under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas