MOHAMMED JAFFAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this petition have challenged the order dated 8-12-1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bhatkal, in PTCL/ cr/3/ 98-99 (vide Annexure F) declaring the sale of the land Survey no. 415/1 measuring 7. 25 guntas out of the total extent of 1 acre 19 guntas of Susugadi village in Bhatkal Taluk. The brief facts of the case which are not much in dispute are as follows:

(2.) THE entire Survey No. 415/1 originally belonging to one smt. Ramabai was a tenanted land. After coming into force the karnataka Land Reforms Act as amended by Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Land Reforms Act) one Rama govinda Mogera, since deceased and now represented by his L. Rs, respondents 4 and 5, filed an application in Form No. 7 for conferring occupancy rights to him on the ground that on the appointed date, i. e. , 1-3-1974, he was the tenant in occupation and enjoyment of the land. After following due procedure like issuance of notice to all the concerned, recording the evidence, etc. , the Land Tribunal by the order dated 25-3-1976 conferred occupancy rights to the said tenant Rama Goinda Mogera to an extent of 30 guntas. This conferment of occupancy rights in favour of the tenant Rama Goinda mogera was not challenged by the landlord and has become final, form No. 10 Certificate of Registration of Occupancy under Section 55 of the Land Reforms Act also was issued. One of the conditions imposed in the Certificate was that the occupant or his successor shall not alienate or transfer the land for 4 period of 15 years from the date of such conferment of right. This Certificate was issued on 5-5-1978. It is also not in dispute that the original tenant Rama died and Respondents 4 and 5 became the legal representatives and successors to the occupancy rights. After the period of limitation of 15 years prescribed in Form No. 10 was over, in the year 1995 they applied to delete the condition of non-alienation and thereby seeking permission to transfer or alienate the land. By the order dated 20-5-1995 (vide Annexure D), the Deputy Commissioner directed to delete the condition of restriction. According to the petitioner, after such condition was deleted, on 9-12-1997 an extent of 7. 25 guntas out of the 30 guntas came to be sold to the petitioners for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1. 3 lakhs. This sale came to be registered.

(3.) THEREAFTER, under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the PTCL Act), suo moto proceedings were initiated by the concerned authority (under the ptcl Act) for declaring the sale of the land in favour of the petitioners as null and void and restoration of possession. The Assistant commissioner who is the competent authority by the impugned order dated 8-12-1998 on finding that the land in question was granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe category and as the alienation was in contravention of the provisions of the grant as well as on the ground that prior to the alienation as no permission of the concerned authority was obtained, as per the order (vide Annexure D) held that the sale was null and void and consequently ordered that the vendor/grantee is entitled to get back the possession. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present Writ Petition. Sri Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the authority was in error in applying the provisions of the PTCL Act to the alienation of the land in question; that the provisions of the PTCL Act are not at all applicable to the cases where occupancy have been conferred even to a person belonging to SC/st Category. The learned Counsel drew my attention to the aims and objects of both the Acts, viz. , the Land reforms Act and the PTCL Act, to contend that the conferment of occupancy rights under the Land Reforms Act cannot be equated to the grant of land under any other provisions like the Land Revenue act, Land Grant Rules, Inam Abolition Act, etc. It is contended that the provisions of the PTCL Act are only applicable to the cases where the original grant is to a person only belonging to SC/st category and the grant is made only on that count; whereas it is not applicable to the cases of conferment of occupancy rights to tenants under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act even if incidentally such occupant belongs to SC/st category and as such it is contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and Iiable to be quashed.