Transactions of land are valid if conducted after the non-alienation clause expiry, provided they comply with original grant conditions.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 as well as learned counsel for respondent No.5.

2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by 2^nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner. In terms of the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has held the sale transaction in respect to the petition property is hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘Act of 1978’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the property in question was originally granted to Bheemanna Kempanna Vaddar in the year 1948-the grandfather of respondent No.5. This fact is not in dispute. On 10.09.1964, grandfather of respondent No.5, the original grantee expired leaving behind his adopted son Nagappa. On 19.05.1966, Nagappa, the father of respondent No.5 sold the property to one Abdul Sattar Sheikh Hussain Tilavalli under the registered sale deed and on 26.05.1970. Said Abdul Shattar sold the property to Ramakant Vitobarao Balse under the registered sale deed. Ramakant Vitobarao Balse sold the property in favour of Bhaskar Narayan Hegde. Then on 01.09.1983, Bhaskar Narayan Hegde sold the property to Vishweshwar Narayan Bhat. The son of Vishweshwar Narayan Bhat sold the property on 27.04.2023 to present petitioner.

4. When the property was sold pursuant to the sale deed dated 27.04.2023, the name of the petitioner was entered in the property records. Thereafter, respondent No.5 challenged the mutation on the premise that the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978.

5. The Assistant Commissioner after considering the materials on record has concluded that the transaction is valid and dismissed the appeal. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has held that transaction is hit under the provisions of Act of 1978 and has passed the impugned order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Manchegowda and others v. State of Karnataka and others , (1984) 3 SCC 301 to contend that the transaction is before the commencement of Act of 1978 and after the expiry of the alienation period, thus, the transaction is valid and cannot be said to be in violation of Act of 1978.

7. In support of his contention that the 15 years alienation period has expired, he would urge that the Government of Karnataka had issued a Notification which is extracted in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and in terms of the said Notification, the restriction on alienation is only 15 years from the date of grant. Thus, it is his contention that the first transaction has taken place 15 years after the grant, and after expiry of the restriction on non-alienation as such, all other transactions are valid.

8. In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the judgments of Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and another , (2020) 14 SCC 232 , Shardhamma and another v. Deputy Commissioner and others , 2025 SCC Online SC 977 and also would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Narayan Swami v. District Commissioner Bengaluru , ILR 2020 KAR 303 .

9. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that even after the amendment to the Act of 1978, providing that there is no limitation to challenge the violation of the Act of 1978, the Division Bench