BAPTIST D ALMEDA Vs. PARAMESHWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN extent of 10 cents of land in Sy. No. 120/39 of Jeppinamogaru village of Mangalore Taluk was granted to one Koje alias Kochi d/o. Kavura under the depressed classes darkhast, in D. D. R. No. 3/1335, dated 31-7-1925. The said Koje sold the said land in favour of one seethu Hengsu under the registered sale deed dated 5-11-1956. The said sale deed describes that both the vendor and the purchaser as belonging to Harijan caste. The said Seethu Hengsu in turn sold the said land in favour of the petitioners under registered sale deed dated 1-8-1968. Ever since then the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land, as owners. It is stated that Jeppinamogaru Village now falls within the city limits of Mangalore.

(2.) THE Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act' for short), came into force on 1-1-1979. 2. 1 Section 4 of the PTCL Act prohibits the transfer of granted lands. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 which is relevant is extracted below:

(3.) THE 4th respondent initiated proceedings under Sections 4 (1) and 5 of the PTCL Act in regard to the said land in case No. A. DIS. PTL. CR. 11/91-92. After examining the records and after giving a hearing to the petitioner, he passed an order on 6-2-1992. He held that the land in question had been granted to one Koje on 31-7-1925 under depressed classes darkhast and such grant was governed by Board's Standing Order No. 15 of the Board of Revenue (Madras ). He held that under the board's Standing Order No. 15 ('bso No. 15' for short), a land granted under the depressed classes darkhast could not be alienated to any person (whether a member of the depressed class or not) in any manner before expiry of 10 years from the date of the grant, nor even thereafter, except to other members of that class. The Assistant Commissioner held that even though the alienation was after the expiry of the 10 years from the date of grant and was in favour of a person belonging to a depressed class, the subsequent alienation was in favour of a person not belonging to a depressed class and therefore the sale was in violation of the conditions of the grant and consequently Section 4 (1) was attracted. The assistant Commissioner therefore declared the sale deed dated 1-8-1968 in favour of the petitioners as null and void under Section 4 (1) of the Act and directed resumption of the land and restoration of the land in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee.