LAWS(SC)-2003-12-66

HARISHCHANDRA HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On December 18, 2003
HARISHCHANDRA HEGDE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which falls for consideration in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 16.2.1996 passed by the High court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 1045 of 1992 is as to whether Section 51 of the transfer of Property Act is applicable in the cases covered by Sections 4 and 5 of the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) act, 1978 (the Act, for short).

(2.) On or about 1.5.1961, two acres of land in Survey No. 134/110 were granted by the Government of Karnataka in favour of one smt. Gangamma. The appellant purchased the said land from her through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration on 13.9.1962 and allegedly invested a lot of money for improvements thereof, The Act came into force w. e. f. 1.1. 1979.

(3.) By reason of Section 4 of the Act all the alienations made in contravention of the terms of Grant were declared as void and all such lands were resumed and restored to the original grantee in terms of Section 5 of the act. On or about 11.9.1986, the original grantee made an application for initiation of a proceeding under Section 4 of the Act, in pursuance whereof the proceeding was initiated against the appellant. An order of restoration of the land in favour of the original grantee was made by the Assistant Commissioner on 29.5.1987. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner thereagainst which was also dismissed on 25.3.1989. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition which was marked as Writ Petition No. 23216 of 1990 for a declaration that any order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Act for restoration of land would be subject to the right of the transferee to claim the value of the improvements as prescribed under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property act. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by reason of an order dated 16.2.1996.