BHADRE GOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.85 (Old.No. 111) in the revenue estate of Bekya Village in Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District was granted in favour of Cheluvaiah on 04.06.1955. The "Saguvali Chit" (possession/grant certificate) was issued in favour of Cheluvaiah on 29.06.1955. On 01.10.1962, the original grantee, Cheluvaiah sold the grant land to Narasimhachari; Narasimhachari in turn, sold it to Eregowda; and Eregowda, on 22.2.1973 sold the said grant land to Marideve Gowda.

(2.) THE original grantee i.e. Cheluvaiah moved an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL' Act) seeking annulment of the grant land sold by him. THE Assistant Commissioner, accepted the prayer made by Cheluvaiah vide an order dated 21.04.1982. THE aforesaid order was passed keeping in view, the mandate contained in Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Section 4 aforementioned is being extracted hereunder:

(3.) DESPITE our aforesaid conclusion, it is imperative for us not to leave the matter without examining the further consequences which are liable to flow after the grantee succeeds in getting the sale made by him, set aside. It is essential for us to travel a little further arid determine the matters arising out of violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act, wherein, the original grantee repeatedly sells the grant land, and then seeks annulment of the sale. These are cases where the vendor successfully reaps the benefit of his own wrong. This case, like others dealt with by us, reveals the misuse of a legislative enactment for personal gains. In the first instance, the original grantee Cheluvaiah sold the grant land on 01.10.1962. Having succeeded in getting the aforesaid sale declared as void, the grant land came to be restored back to him. Fully aware of the fact that he could not have sold the grant land, he sold it yet again to Somegowda on 03.02.1992. Cheluvaiah again succeeded in getting the second sale made by him set aside, so as to retrieve the land. The question that we wish to determine is, whether having got the sale revoked, the original grantee is entitled to retain the consideration amount received by him?. We are satisfied, that repeated sales at the hands of the original grantee constitutes the offence of cheating under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. A person who cheats, is definitely not entitled to seek restoration of the grant land and retain the consideration received by him by sale thereof. It is therefore, that we desire to hereby grant liberty to the appellants to recover the sale consideration paid by Somegowda to Cheluvaiah on 03.02.1992 as the grant land has been restored to Cheluvaiah (now his legal heirs). The other alternative, as we have concluded hereinabove, is not available to the appellants in view of the Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Cheluvaiah (his legal heirs as is the position in this case) are certainly not entitled to retain the consideration received by them, based on a sale in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Thus, it shall be open to the appellants herein to seek the refund of the sale consideration along with interest thereon, if they are so advised, by proceeding against the respondents through a civil litigation, if the amount is unilaterally not refunded.