LINGAPPA ACHARY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short 'the Act'] are so drastic, so pervasive, so assertive, so empathic, so impacting that even a bona fide purchaser of a land which had been granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled tribe community in a court auction sale is also caught in the crossfire of a transaction which is covered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

(2.) In the present case, writ Petitioner is a person who had so purchased certain land which had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community and it was subject matter of a court auction sale. Petitioner having paid the amount and sale transaction also having concluded with the confirmation of sale by execution of sale deed through court order itself, but notwithstanding these developments, the person claiming under the original grantee of subject land having Petitioned the Assistant Commissioner to get over the sale transaction etc., and the Assistant Commissioner exercising his power under Section 5 of the Act after having held an enquiry and after noticing the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, particularly Sub-section [3] of Section 4 of the Act, reading as under:

(3.) While, from a lay person's point of view and even from the angle of a perception of right or wrong as it prevails in our society, the Petitioner being a bona fide purchaser, having paid the price as was quoted in the court auction sale if is to be deprived of both the land and the money no wonder it appears to be a very unfair development.