MUNIREDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ appeal, the writ petitioners have contended that the alienation of the disputed land in favour of the vendors of their father by the original grantee, who was a member of Scheduled Caste, cannot be voided under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act). The transactions were declared as null and void by the jurisdictional authority and the land was ordered to be restored to the legal representative of the original grantee. Appellants challenged the action of jurisdictional authority unsuccessfully in appeal and also in writ petition.

(2.) Material facts which have led to this appeal could be stated as under:

(3.) Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, firstly, contended that, the original grant being on 22.09.1939, there was no rule framed by the Government regulating conditions of grant and in the absence of any rule, imposition of restriction based on the Government order is bad and illegal, as held in the case of Mariyappa v. Dr. N. Thimmarayappa and Ors., 2004 ILR(Kar) 3298 and hence, the 3rd respondent was not justified in holding that the alienations effected in the year 1946 and 1952 to be in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Secondly, a specific contention was urged before the learned Single Judge that, the Government has granted the land on 22.09.1939 and the alienation was on 04.02.1946 and the PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979 and by then, the appellants' father and his vendor had been in continuous possession of the property for more than 30 years, thereby, they have perfected their title to the property by adverse possession, is not correctly appreciated and hence, interference is called for.