RANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I HAVE JUST NOW DISPOSED OF THE MAIN MATTER IN W.P. NO. 13281 OF 1986 WHEREIN I HAVE UPHELD THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BASED UPON THE COMMON FACTS IN BOTH THE PETITIONS.

(2.) IN THIS PETITION, THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FAILED TO RESTORE THE LAND IN HIS FAVOUR ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT HE (PETITIONER) ALIENATED THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT-5 HEREIN BY WAY OF SECURITY FOR THE LOAN BORROWED. IN OTHER WORDS, HIS GRIEVANCE IS AGAINST THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR RESTORATION AND THE LAND WOULD VEST IN THE GOVERNMENT.

(3.) I PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. HE WAS NOT RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE GRANTEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR RESTORATION AS HE OFFERED THE GRANTED LAND AS SECURITY FOR THE AMOUNT BORROWED BY HIM. THIS WOULD BE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 4 AND 5 OF THE KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PROHIBITION OF TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LANDS) ACT, 1978 ('THE ACT' FOR SHORT). UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ASPECT WAS ALSO NOT NOTICED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN APPEAL. ACCEPTING THE PLEA PUT FORWARD BY THE PETITIONER, I MUST HOLD THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS TO THE RESTORATION OF THE GRANTED LAND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. TO THAT EXTENT, THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REQUIRE MODIFICATION.