C N Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner in this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has called in question the correctness and legality of the orders of the assistant commissioner-3rd respondent at Annexure-A as well as that of the deputy commissioner-2nd respondent at Annexure-B respectively. He has also sought for quashing the same for the reasons set out m the petition. A few facts that are necessary for disposal of this petition are as follows: 9 acres 28 guntas in sy. No. 90 of chadalapura village, chikballapur taluk, kolar district, came to be granted in favour of one kempa, father of chowdappa, 4th respondent herein, by an order made by the competent authority on 29-12-1930 applying the Karnataka land grant rules then prevailing, subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land at any time. It is not in dispute that the granted land came to be sold by chowdappa-4th respondent after the death of his father-kempa, by a registered sale deed dated 9-12-1940 in favour of one munivenkatappa, s/o thoti thimma, who, in turn, sold 3 acres 9 guntas out of the granted land in favour of doddanagappa, s/o hanumanthappa, by a registered sale deed dated 4-8-1952. On the death of the said doddanagappa, the khata of the land came to be transferred in favour of his son c.n. byrappa, the original petitioner herein. After the coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the act), chowdappa-4th respondent approached the assistant commissioner, chickballapur sub-division, seeking relief under the said act. His case was that the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the conditions of the grant. Therefore, Section 4 of the act was attracted. The assistant commissioner having notified both the parties and having held an enquiry, passed the impugned order Annexure-A by which he declared that the granted land having been sold in contravention of the conditions of the grant, to that extent the sale was void. He further directed that pursuant to Section 5, the granted land shall be restored in favour of the original grantee or his son claiming under him. Aggrieved by this order of the assistant commissioner, the matter was taken up in appeal before the deputy commissioner, kolar district. The deputy commissioner, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, dismissed the appeal, by his order dated 24-12-1986-annexure-b. Aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner has approached this court in writ petition seeking for reliefs referred to above.

(2.) two contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition i.e., (i) as on the date when the land in question came to be granted in favour of kempa, father of the 4th respondent, there was no prohibition imposed in the grant prohibiting alienation of the granted land. Therefore, to that extent, the assistant commissioner and deputy commissioner were in error in applying sections 4 and 5 of the act; (ii) late byrappa had been enjoying that portion of the land that came to be sold in favour of his father doddanagappa by his vendor munivenkatappa from the date of sale viz., 4-8-1952. The legal contention is that if we take into account the date of first sale of the granted land i.e., 9-12-1940 made in favour of munivenkatappa, s/o thoti thimma, and the continuous undisturbed enjoyment by late byrappa of the land in question from the date of sale of that land in favour of his father doddanagappa, their possession is more than 30 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v State of kamataka, ILR 1987(3) Karnataka 2076, if there is long and continuous enjoyment of the land in question for a period of over 30 years, then the person who has been enjoying the land has perfected his title by virtue of the law of adverse possession. Therefore, applying the ruling of the Supreme Court in sunkara rajyalakshmi's case, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the land. These are the two contentions urged in support of the writ petition.

(3.) I do not think there is any force in any one of these contentions.