K CHOWDAIAH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two writ petitions arise out of common orders made by the assistant commissioner/second respondent as per Annexure-C and the deputy commissioner/appellate authority/first respondent as per annexurc-d respectively. The facts and circumstances including the questions of law arising out of the common orders are one and the same. I propose to dispose of these two writ petitions by the following common order. By perusal of the pleadings as well as the reference made to the facts in the impugned orders of the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, it is seen that one bhoodi gollaiah was enjoying 2-00 acres of land in sy. No. 36/16, situated in bhimanahalli village, malavalli taluk, mandya district as lease hold rights had been conferred upon him by the competent authority under the grow more food scheme earlier. During the course of the enjoyment of the lease hold rights by the lessee of the said land, on an application made by the lessee, the deputy commissioner confirmed the lease hold rights and the occupancy rights in favour of the lessee by an order made by the deputy commissioner on 8-1-1964. These facts are not in dispute. In other words from the date of confirmation made by the deputy commissioner in accordance with the land grant rules, the occupant who was enjoying the land under the lease hold rights derived full title and right of cultivation in his favour.

(2.) it is again not in dispute that the said two acres of granted land came to bepurchased by k. Siddaraju, son of k. Koppaiah-third respondent herein by a registered sale deed dated 19-2-1964 from the original grantee. Subsequently the 3rd respondent sold one acre of land in favour of k. Chowdaiah, petitioner in writ petition No. 5724/1988 under a registered sale deed somewhere in the, year 1966 and again the remaining one acre came to be sold in favour of chikkaputtaiah, petitioner in writ petition No. 5725/1988 by a registered sale deed dated 13-6-1969. Thus, the petitioners have been in enjoyment of the land purchased by them respectively from the date of sale.

(3.) after coming into force of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes act (hereinafter called 'the act of 1978'), sid daraju/third respondent has approached the assistant commissioner, mandya seeking benefit of sections 4 and 5 of the said act. His case was that the granted land came to be sold in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 in contravention of the condition. Therefore, be is entitled for the restoration of the granted land.