SRINIVAS G Vs. HARISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date of hearing, we have brought to the notice of Sri. A. G.Holla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants that it is our understanding that the appeal is covered on all fours by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinde Gowda, as well as our judgment (Division Bench) in Chandra Naik vs. State of Karnataka and others in WA No. 16380/2011.

(2.) Sri. A. G. Holla, learned Senior Counsel contends that factual matrix in the aforementioned cases was that the Court was confronted with a lease granted in favor of the concerned party, containing the covenant restraining the power of alienation for a certain period of time (in that case 15 years). The distinction that is sought to be brought before us is that in the present case, an outright grant has been made. Therefore, the State has divested itself of any control over the land in question. It is however, not disputed that one of the terms of the grant was that there shall be no alienation and was prohibited for a period of 15 years.

(3.) Sri. B. Veerappa, learned AGA contends that on a perusal of the grant, the moratorium is for a period of 30 years. We need not go into this controversy for the reason that the period before us is not crucial to our decision. This is for the reason that the alienation in favor of the predecessor of the appellants in question took place within a period of 15 years.