LAWS(KAR)-1990-11-17

SIDDAMMA Vs. CHIKKEGOWDA

Decided On November 08, 1990
SIDDAMMA Appellant
V/S
CHIKKEGOWDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is presented by the appellant against the order dated 26-6-1989 of the learned judge allowing the writ petition presented by respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya (rcspondcnt-2 herein) dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of the assistant commissioner, mandya sub-division, mandya (respondent-3 herein) in which it was held that the sale of the land in question in favour of respondent No. 1 was void in view of the Provisions of the karnalaka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 ('the act' for short).

(2.) the brief facts of the case arc these.- 2 acres of land in survey No. 98 of hullegala village, malavalli taluk, mandya district, had been given for cultivation under grow more food scheme which had been promulgated by the then government of his highness the maharaja of Mysore in the year 1944. According to the grow more food scheme if the person to whom the land was given on temporary lease under the said scheme cultivated the land, after the of five years the land was required to be grated to the same person. In the present case the land had been granted under the grow more food scheme not only to the husband of the appellant, but also to 29 others in survey No. 98 of hullegala village. No steps were taken, immediately after the expiry of five years, lor the grant of land. However, by order dated 24-3-1961 made by the deputy commissioner on the basis of the report dated 6-1-1961 submitted by the tahsildar, malavalli taluk, the lease of the lands made in favour of 25 individuals were confirmed. A copy of the same is produced as anncxurc-A. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: official memorandum sub:- confirmation of lease grants made out of si. No. 98 of hullegala village, malavalli taluk. Ref:- this office order No. T.dr. 603/42, dated 6-2-1943 granting lands to the following persons under G.M.F. scheme fixing the value of the land at Rs. 151- per acre. 2. Report No. G.r.t. 97/53-54, dated 6-1-1961 from the tahsildar, malavalli taluk, accompanying confirmation of the lease grant in respect of blocks 1 to 31 for cultivation. Blocks 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 for dry cultivation and for the cancellation of the blocks 13, 14, 18 and 23 etc., And also submitting a consolidated statement of pahani extract. As recommended by the tahsildar the lease grant made in favour of the following leases arc confirmed in their names fixing the value of the land at Rs. 25/- per acre. Sriyuths block No. Extent 1. Earcgowda 1 2-00 xxx x xxx 4. Sidda bin padasale chikka 4 2-00 5. Sidda bin kunnana dasa 5 2-00 xxx x xxx 25. Betlaiah 31 4-00 total 54-30 separate orders will be issued in respect of the remaining blocks. There is no dispute that the husband of the appellant paid Rs. 25/- per acre. Out of the 2 acres of land so granted it appears 1 acre was sold by a registered sale deed dated 8-4-1966 in favour of the first respondent chikkcgowda, who in turn sold in favour of one siddaiah on 30-5-1969. Again chikkcgowda (rcspondent-1) purchased the same land by a registered sale deed dated 13-5-1974. In the year 1978, the legislature enacted the act. According to Section 4 of the Act, every sale of land which had been granted in favour of a member belonging to the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, during the period during which there was prohibition for selling the land, was declared void and Section 5 required the competent authority under the act to make an actual declaration in a given case to that effect and restore the land to the original grantee or his legal representatives.

(3.) after the act came into force, the assistant commissioner, mandya sub-division, mandya, initiated action under the act and passed an order after notice to respondent No. 1 that the sale of 1 acre of land out of survey No. 98 in his favour was void and directed restoration of possession of the said land in favour of the appellant. The said order was taken in appeal by respondent No. 1 before the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya, under Section 5-a of the act. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 1 presented a writ petition. In the writ petition, the main contention of respondent No. 1 was that the condition prescribed under the Karnataka land grant rules, 1960 had no application to the present ease as this was a grant made under Rule 43(j) of the rules. The learned judge after considering the relevant Provisions of the rules upheld the contention of respondent No. 1 and allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant has presented this appeal.