JAVAREGOWDA K. C. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth respondent Kariyappa was granted land measuring 1.39 acres by the State on 22-11-1948 free of cost under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules. One of the conditions of the grant was that the land shall not be alienated to any third party. Out of this granted land, the appellant herein purchased 20 guntas of land from the fourth respondent on 14-8-1967. On 1-1-1979 the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force and under S.4 of the said Act, alienation made against the terms of the grant and the law providing for such grant, was declared null and void. In relation to that, the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the appellant for resumption of the land purchased by the respondent (sic appellant). The appellant had objected to the order passed against him for resumption of the land purchased by him from the fourth respondent. But the Assistant Commissioner rejected the objections and confirmed his proposal. The appellant filed an appeal against the order before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the fourth respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the said writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order originally passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and thereafter, the appellant pursued the matter in writ appeal and the same was also dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the State.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the alienation in favour of the appellant was after the introduction of clause (4) to R.43 - G and, therefore, the said alienation was valid.