LAWS(KAR)-1991-7-27

MANCLTE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On July 30, 1991
MANCLTE GOWDA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the question that arises for consideration in this petition is as follows:

(2.) it is undisputed that one acre of land in sy. No. 95 of hcggur village, t. Narsipurataluk, Mysore district, which was a government land, was leased in favour of nanjundaiah-thc fourth respondent herein, under proceedings No. Lcr 8/1959- 60, dated 3-11-1959 subject to certain conditions. A copy of the lease has been produced at annexure-a. The lease was lor a period of five years commencing from June 1960, although the sentence relating to period of lease is missing in anncxure-a, in the government records produced by Sri siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader, there is a specific word indicating that the period of lease was for five years. Before the expiry of the said period, the granting authority confirmed occupancy right in favour of fourth respondent by the saguvali chit (Annexure-B), dated 28-12-1961. In this saguvali chit (certificate of grant) a condition is imposed in para 7 saying that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land for a period of fifteen years.

(3.) however, the grantee (respondent-4) sold the land in favour of the petitioner before the expiry of the period of 15 years. There is no doubt about that. The assistant commissioner having held thai an enquiry passed the impugned order (Annexure-C) by which he held that since the granted land came to be sold in contravention of the condition of the grant. Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition ot'transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') were attracted. Accordingly, he declared that the alienation of 1 acre of granted land was void. Besides, he directed restoration of the land in favour of the fourth respondent. Against this Order, the matter was taken up in appeal before the deputy commissioner who dismissed the appeal by his Order, Annexure-D . Hence, this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution.