SIDDEGOWDA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Nanjaiah alias Gangaiah was allotted 1 acre 20 guntas of land by the State for a total sum of Rs. 750/-. The land allotted to Gungaiah was purchased by the appellant herein on 10-9-1968. This allotment was made under the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1888. The Karnataka State Legislature passed the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act, 1978 and it came into force on 1-1-1979. Under Section 4 of the said Act, certain alienations made in contravention of the terms of grant of land were declared null and void. Pursuant to that, notice was issued under section 4 of the Act to the appellant alleging that the sale in favour of the appellant by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3-A to E was violative of provisions of the Act and the land was to be resumed and possession be given back to these respondents. The appellant filed objection and the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 26-3-1990 ordered resumption of the land. The appellant challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The same was dismissed. Appellant thereafter filed a Writ Appeal and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal.

(2.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention urged by the appellants counsel was that the land granted to Gungaiah was for an upset price fixed as per the rules and the upset price being equivalent to market value of the land, the prohibition against alienating of the property, envisaged under R. 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue Code is not applicable. The counsel for the appellant also contended that in the "Sagu Vah Chit" (grant certificate) executed in favour of the original grantee Gungaiah there was no specific clause prohibiting alienation of the land to any other party. Therefore, it was argued that the sale in favour of the appellant was perfectly valid and section 4 of the Act has no application.

(3.) The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the grant in favour of Gungaiah was effected on payment of the occupancy price payable by the grantee, though it is described as upset price and the same does not amount to market value of the land. The counsel for the State also supported this contention and submitted that any grant of land made under the Rule 43-C would automatically attract the provision prohibition contained in Rule 43-G if the grant is for any amount less than the market value.