The land granted to a Scheduled Caste individual and subsequently sold is not subject to restrictions under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and ST Act if it was purchased in a public auction.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20602/2021 (SC/ST).

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the land bearing old Sy.No.13, new Sy.No.71, measuring 2 acres situated at Bommanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore Rural District, was granted by the State Government on 15.01.1979 in favour of late Sri.Narasaiah, husband of the appellant No.1 and the father of the appellant Nos.2 and 3 as they belong to Scheduled Caste. The saguvali chit was issued on 30.07.1980. The grantee-late Narasaiah, along with his wife executed a sale deed dated 04.09.1985 to the extent of 1 acre 20 guntas in favour of N.S.Gangadhar. The grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which came to be allowed. The Deputy Commissioner further upheld the appeal and restored the land in favour of the grantee. Later, the said purchaser got executed a sale deed from the grantee for 1 acre of land after obtaining permission from the Authority for alienation. Later Smt.Jayamma, sister-in-law of the grantee-late Narasaiah also alienated 25 guntas in favour of Jayaram-respondent No.9 and the respondent Nos.4 to 7 gifted 1 gunta in favour of Nagaraju. The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Act which came to be allowed by ordering resumption and restoration. The Deputy Commissioner reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants challenged the said order in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the grantee purchased the land in a public auction and the land is beyond the purview of the Act and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.

3. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in recording the finding that the land is beyond the purview of the Act and late Narasaiah had purchased the said land in a public auction which was uncalled for. It is submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings have raised this issue. Infact, the respondents' pleading indicate that the land was granted to Naraisaiah and thereafter, they sold the land after obtaining permission from the Authority. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner to examine whether the land in question is a granted land or late Narasaiah purchased it in a public auction. It is also submitted that the alleged permission to alienate was not in force as on the date of sale and gift deeds as there is violation of the condition of the alleged permission. A perusal of the condition indicates that the permission order would be in force for 4 months and the transfer in question is beyond 4 months. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Rahul S.Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.9 and Sri.V.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.8 support the impugned order and submit that the learned Single Judge examined the records and recorded a clear finding that the subject matter of the property is purchased by late Narasaiah in a public auction. Hence, the question of seeking permission from the Competent Authority for alienation and the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act would not arise. It is submitted that out of 2 acres of land, 1 acre was retained by late Narasaiah and another 1 acre was given to late Sri.Chowdaiah who is none other than his br