SHANKARAGOUDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2013 passed in W.P.No.47742/2004 whereby the writ petition has been rejected confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner, directing the authorities to resume and restore the subject lands in accordance with law within a time frame.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts are that the entries made in the revenue records based on the Will dated 27.02.1991 said to have been executed by one Sri Basappa Madar relating to the lands bearing R.S.No.315/B measuring 13 acres 23 guntas, R.S.No.385/4 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas and R.S.No.339/5 measuring 20 guntas situated at Managundi village, taluk and district Dharwad, qua the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad/respondent No.2 pursuant to the application filed by respondents 3 to 5. Respondent No.2 has held that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case more particularly, Sections 3 (1)(b) and 3 (1)(e) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the respondents 3 to 5 had approached the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, who has set aside the order of the respondent No.1 and directed the authorities to resume the subject lands to the Government, thereafter, to restore the lands to the legal heirs of the original grantees in terms of Section 5 (b) of the Act. Challenging the said order, Writ Petition No.47742/2004 was preferred by the appellant before this Court. Learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition, the appellant is before this Court.

(3.) Sri.G.I.Gachchinmath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the provisions of Sections 3 (1) (b) and 3 (1) (e) of the Act in a right perspective. The wrong interpretation of the phrase 'transfer' as employed in Section 3 (1) (e) made by the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed by the learned Single Judge certainly calls for interference by this Court. Placing much emphasis on Section 3 (1) (e), it was submitted that 'testamentary disposition' being excluded, Section 4 of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The disputed land bearing R.S.No.315/B was originally granted to Sri Hanumantappa s/o Siddawwa Madar on 21.03.1963. Similarly, R.S.No.385/4 and 339/15 were inam lands (service inam) coming under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition act, 1961, allotted to one Sri Raja @ Babya s/o Dodda Raju Holer. The said Hanumantappa inherited the lands bearing R.S.Nos.385/4, 339/15 along with R.S.No.315/B. He died on 14.01.1978 as a bachelor.