D KARIYAPPA Vs. THIMMABOVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.2011 passed in W.P. No. 4245/2010 (SC/ST) observing that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the land granted in favour of the original grantee was to a person belonging to the scheduled caste community, and therefore dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) Before us, the matter has been canvassed in great detail. Our attention has been drawn to the original order passed in the writ proceedings at the first instance, whereby the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to determine whether the original grantee belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It was pursuant thereto that the order which led to the filing of W.P.No.4245/10 came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 29.07.2008. In that order, the Assistant Commissioner has returned the finding that Bovi community is a scheduled caste in Karnataka State. Inexplicably our attention has been drawn to the Constitution Bench decision in the case of MarrichandraShekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.s. Medical College & Ors, 1990 3 SCC 130. The said judgment militates against the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It states that a person who is recognized as a member of Sc/ST in his original State will be entitled to all benefits under the Constitution in that State alone and not in all parts of the country where he migrates.

(3.) So far as the order and the findings by the Assistant Commissioner is concerned, he has noted firstly that the appellant before us has failed altogether to produce any material in support of his contention that the original did not belong to scheduled caste/Bovi community. In a case such as the present one, there is a stipulation in the original grant itself that alienation is not permitted for a certain period. Therefore, the prospective buyer is put to caution as to whether the property should be purchased or not. Despite this caution, if the purchaser recklessly goes through with the sale transaction, he himself is to be blamed.