KARAPPA BOVI Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the special deputy commissioner allowing the appeal presented by the 3rd respondent under Section 5-a of the Karnataka scheduled castes, scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the act' for short) and setting aside the order of the assistant commissioner made under the act in favour of the petitioner and also praying for quashing the order of grant of land in favour of respondent No. 3 pursuant to the order of the special deputy commissioner.

(2.) the brief facts of the case are these:- 5 acres of land in sy. No. 28, block 37 of matakere village in kandalike hobli, h.d. kote taluk, Mysore district, was granted to the petitioner by an order of the deputy commissioner of the district on 28-4-1965. On that very day, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of the aforesaid 5 acres of land granted to him. The saguvali chit was, however, issued on the next day, i.e. on 29-4-1965. Since then, the 3rd respondent had been in possession of the land. The act was enacted by the legislature in the year 1978 and it came into force in January 1979. Section 4 of the act declared that any sale of land granted to a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe before the commencement of the act in contravention of the terms of grant of such land shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be deemed to have ever conveyed by such transfer to the purchaser concerned. Section 5 of the act provides for resumption of such land and inter alia provides for restoration of the land to the person to whom it was granted or to his legal representatives. After the act came into force, action was initiated by the assistant commissioner, hunsur sub-division, on coming to know that the 5 acres of land granted to the petitioner, who belongs to scheduled caste, had been sold in contravention of the terms of grant and therefore the sale was invalid.

(3.) after issuing notice to the petitioner, anorder was passed on 29-9-1986 by the assistant commissioner holding that the sale in favour of the 3rd respondent by the petitioner of the land in question was invalid. He also directed that the possession of the land be restored to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Order, the 3rd respondent presented an appeal before the special deputy commissioner under Section 5-a of the act. In the appeal, the contention of the appellant was that the Provisions of the act was not attracted at all for the reason that the grant in favour of the petitioner became effective only on 29-4-1965 and that the land in question was sold on 28-4-1965. This argument found favour with the deputy commissioner. He took the view that the petitioner could be regarded as having become the owner of the land only on 29-4-1965 and the grant must be regarded as having become effective only on 29-4-1965 and as the sale was earlier to the said date, the prohibition contained in Section 4 was not attracted. On this reasoning the deputy commissioner set aside the order of the assistant commissioner. He did not stop there. He proceeded further and directed that the land be granted in favour of the 3rd respondent. Questioning the legality of the said order of the deputy commissioner, the petitioner presented this petition. This petition has been referred to a division bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act.