HANAMANTHAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the order dtd. 21/6/2008 passed by the respondent No.2 in the proceedings bearing No.KAN:PARABHARE:58/07-08 vide Annexure-B and the order dtd. 26/10/2009 passed by the respondent No.1 in proceedings bearing No.KAN:APPEAL/57/2008-09 vide Annexure-C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are: The petitioner claims that the property bearing R.S.No.128/3 measuring 2 acres 85 cents situated at Sankalapura village, Hospet Taluk, Ballari District, was granted to the grandmother of the petitioner Late Smt.Harijana Huligemma, wife of Parasappa under a grant order during the year 1950-51 vide Annexures-A and D respectively. The original grantee Smt.Harijana Huligemma allegedly executed a Will in favour of the petitioner herein on 20/4/1984, bequeathing the property in question in his favour. Subsequently in the year 1987, the original grantee Smt.Harijana Huligemma is said to have expired. Said Smt.Harijana Huligemma's son viz., Harijana Galeppa executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, on 30/3/1993 in respect to the land in question without the knowledge of the petitioner. After coming to know about the said sale deed executed by Harijana Galeppa, the petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 5(1) of the Karnataka SC & ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1978") before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land in question on the ground that the sale deed dtd. 30/3/1993 executed by Harijana Galeppa in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 was in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1978. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dtd. 21/6/2008 had dismissed the application for resumption filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and even the said appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 26/10/2009. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent - authorities have failed to appreciate that the land in question is a "granted land" within the meaning of Sec. 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1978. He submits that admittedly, Smt.Harijana Huligemma belonged to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1978 is attracted in respect of the sale which has been executed by her son in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. He submits that the sale in question has been done after coming into force of the Act of 1978 and therefore, prior permission from the competent authority was required to be obtained and in the absence of the same, the sale in question is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978.