B M HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA ACT KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES PROHIBITION OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the land measuring 1 acre in survey No. 96 of beeranahalli village in shimoga district came to be granted to the 3rd respondent imposing a condition that he shall not alienate the property for a period of 15 years. Within one year from the date of grant the 3rd respondent entered into an oral agreement with the petitioner for the sale of the property and on the basis of such oral agreement the petitioner was put in possession of the land. However, the grantee/3rd respondent realising the mistake committed by him and also taking benefit under the Provisions of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes {prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the act) filed an application before the assistant commissioner for a declaration that the transaction is void and for restoration of the land in question to him. On the basis of the application filed by the 3rd respondent, the assistant commissioner passed an order declaring that the transaction as void and directing that the land should be restored to the 3rd respondent. The appeal preferred before the deputy commissioner against the order of the assistant commissioner came to be dismissed confirming the order of the assistant commissioner. Before the deputy commissioner the appellant, petitioner herein, took up the following contentions: i) that the Provisions of the act could not have been made applicable to the petitioner on the ground that the land which is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner is not the one granted to the 3rd respondent. According to him, he came in possession of the land belonging to the government and he was in possession of the same for more than 20 years; and ii) to attract the Provisions of the act the person who seeks benefit under the act shall establish that there was a transfer in the nature of sale, gift, mortgage, etc. But, in the instant case, no such transaction has taken place.

(2.) however, the deputy commissioner rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner and thus confirmed the order passed by the assistant commissioner. Challenging the said orders of the deputy commissioner and the assistant commissioner the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) the main grounds on which thelearned counsel for the petitioner desires to attack the impugned orders are : i) the authorities were not right in taking into consideration the submission made by the 3rd respondent that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation and enjoyment of the land; ii) the authorities erred in arriving at the conclusion that the Provisions of the act would b3 applicable to the land in question; and iii) the authorities did not take into consideration the effect of Section 3(1) {e) and Section 5(3) of the act. If these two sections are clearly understood, the conclusion would have been that the act has no application to the case on hand.