NOORUNISA BEGUM Vs. MUNIOBALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI m. n. Sheshadri, learned government Advocate takes notice for respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) LEARNED single judge following the decision rendered by another learned single judge of this court in kariyappa v the assistant commissioner, hassan sub-division, hassan and others, held that the land meant for house site is also hit by the Provisions of Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, and therefore, the view taken by the deputy commissioner to the contrary is not correct. The order of the assistant commissioner holding that the alienation by the original grantee is invalid as per the Provisions of the said act was upheld. We are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. The expression land' as per the normal connotation of the term and the definition of 'granted land' under the aforementioned act does embrace a smaller portion of land such as house site. The words and expressions not defined under the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) act will have the same meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka land revenue Act, as per Section 3 (2) of the act. In Karnataka land revenue Act, there is an inclusive definition of land and it is very wide. That is how the learned single judge approached the issue in kariyappa's case, supra. The same view has been reiterated by the learned single judge in the impugned order. Moreover, adopting the Rule of purposive construction, there is no warrant to restrict the scope and ambit of expression land' only to agricultural lands. Even the unauthorised alienation of small portions of land allotted for house site purposes are meant to be covered by the prohibition under scheduled castes and scheduled tribes act. The interpretation which will defeat the objectives of the act cannot be adopted. We therefore agree with the learned single judge that the view of deputy commissioner, acting as an appellate authority is erroneous.

(3.) THE second point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the writ petition having been dismissed against the third respondent in writ petition by name syed nasarali for non-prosecution, no relief should have been granted in the writ petition. It is contended that Sri syed nasarali is the appellant's vendor and the dismissal of the writ petition against him automatically results in dismissal of the writ petition against the appellant as well. This contention cannot be accepted. The vendor of the appellant is at best a proper party. The appellant having purportedly derived title through him and having claimed subsisting interest in the land is the necessary party and relief could be granted in the writ petition after hearing the appellant alone. Hence, writ appeal is dismissed.