R MUNIRAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have raised the challenge to the order, dated 24.2.2005 (Annexure-B) passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order, dated 1 1.12.2008 (Annexure-A) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) The Facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 3 acres situated at Survey No. 116 of Kurubarahalli Village, Tavarakere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, was granted to one Rangaiah on 31.1.1963. The said Rangaiah availed of some financial assistance from the father of the fourth respondent. On his inability to repay the amount, Rangaiah sold the land to the fourth respondent on 30.4.1966. Thereafter, the Saguvali Chit came to be issued to the said Rangaiah on 2 1.12.1967. The petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Rangaiah made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [hereafter called 'PTCL Act' for short. The Assistant Commissioner took the view that, as the sale is effected even before the issuance of the Saguvali Chit, the grantee or his legal representatives are not entitled to restoration. He therefore passed the order, dated 24.2.2005 turning down the petitioners' request for the restoration of the granted land. On the other hand, the Assistant Commissioner directed that the lands be resumed to die Government free from encumbrances. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner, who by his order, dated 11.12.2008 dismissed the petitioners' appeal by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner's reasoning is that Rangaiah himself had not acquired any right and title over the land because he sold it to the respondent No. 4 even before the issuance of Saguvali Chit.

(3.) These two concurrent orders are being assailed in this writ petition. Sri Prakash T. Hebbar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issuance of the Saguvali Chit is an administerial act. The non-issuance or the delay in its issuance of Saguvali Chit would not have the effect of validating the sale and/or the forfeiture of the lane to the Government. He submits that whether the Saguvali Chit is issued or not the rule imposing the embargo or restraint on alienating the property for fifteen years has to be given effect to. The learned Counsel pointedly brings to my notice the language employed in Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. The Legislature has consciously used the words "in contravention of the terms of the grant" and not "in contravention of the terms of the Grant Certificate or Saguvali Chit."