R.P. SOUMYA REDDY W/O. R.P. PRATAP REDDY Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION AND R. YELLAPA S/O. LATE RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ramaiah having a made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Doddaballapura, was granted two acres of land in Sy. No. 36 of Samathenahalli. Aanugondanahalli Hobli. Hoskote Taluk, under an Official Memorandum dated 31.08.1978 for an upset price of Rs. 250/ - per acre and being a person belonging to SC/ST. 75% of the amount was waived up to a maximum of Rs. 500/ -, and the balance, to be recovered in three equal installment It appears that the grantee alienated the said land under a deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner on 04.09.1995 for a valuable consideration, of Rs 1 90.000/ - without the prior permission or sanction of the State Government under Sub -section (2) of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1978. The said Ramaiah petitioned the Assistant Commissioner invoking Sections 4 and 5 of the Act to declare as null and void the transaction of sale dated 04.09.1995 and to restore the land. During the pendency of the petition. the said Ramaiah reportedly died and the third respondent was brought on record as his legal representative. The Assistant Commissioner having held an enquiry, concluded that, in the absence of the grant records, the petition deserved to be rejected and accordingly, by order dated 01.10.2005 Annexure - 'C' rejected the petition. The third respondent having filed an appeal invoking Section 5 -A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, registered, as No. LND -SCST -(A) 42/2005 -2006. was allowed by order dated 03.03.2009 Annexure - 'A', recording a finding that, the grant records disclosed a grant made to an SC/ST at the rate of Rs. 250/ - per acre after waiving 75% of the said sum upto a maximum Rs. 500/ - and to recover the money in three installments. The sale of the grained land by the grantee without the prior sanction of the State under Sub -section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, was contrary to the Act and therefore the sale deserved to be set aside.

(2.) HAVING perused the petition averments, and heard the learned Government counsel, examined the orders impugned, there is little doubt that the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the grant records establishing the grant of the land to a person belonging to SC/ST for an upset price of Rs. 250/ - while waiving 75% of the said sum and recovery of the balance in installments under an Official Memorandum dated 31 -08 -1978, coupled with the fact that the sale deed admittedly was executed on 04.09.1995 conveying the granted land without prior permission of the State under Sub -section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, also not being in dispute, the conclusions arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as Court of appeal to review the evidence placed before the authorities below. Even otherwise, in the admitted facts of the case, the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted with. Petition being without merit is rejected.