NARASA REDDY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been placed before the Full Bench as per the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 1-4-2002 and has come up before us. A learned Single Judge of this Court has referred this matter as per order dated 23-6-1999 to the larger Bench formulating the following questions. 1. What is the meaning of expression date of grant for the purpose of computation of the period of prohibition against alienation under Rule 43 (6-A) of the 1958 Rules as amended after january 20, 1958 or in Rules of 1956 (Rule 43 (6-A) or Rule 43-A (3a) of the Rules) as operative from January 18, 1956 or as used in Rule 43 (8) of the Rules operative from 4-8-1956? 2. Whether correct proposition of law has been laid down by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmamma v State of karnataka and Others, vide observations in paragraphs 75 and 76 or that it has been correctly laid down in the cases of Karappa bovi v Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore and Others and hanum. anna v Machappa and Others?

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the order of reference are. Land bearing Sy. No. 83/3 measuring 5 acres of Gudihalli Village was granted to one Marappa on 24-3-1960. The said Marappa belonged to scheduled Caste. However, the saguvali chit/grant certificate was issued on 25-1-1963. The grantee sold the land in favour of the petitioners on 13-12-1974. In view of the passing of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter for short referred to as "act of 1978"), the said grantee made an application, to the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of land as the said sale was in contravention of the Act of 1978. After notice to the petitioners an enquiry was held and the Assistant Commissioner held that the alienation in favour of the petitioners was against the terms of the grant and therefore he ordered eviction of the petitioners and for restoration of land to the grantee. Petitioners filed an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner which also came to be dismissed. It is against the said orders the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

(3.) IT was contended that, firstly, as the grant was for an upset price the prohibition for alienation is to be taken as only 10 years and not 15 years and secondly, it was contended it is the date of grant which is to be taken into consideration and not the date of issue of saguvali chit or grant certificate. The said contention was strongly opposed by the respondents. Both the parties relied on several judgments of this Court on the point and it is in this context the learned Single Judge after referring to the earlier judgments of this Court came to the conclusion that the decisions in Hanumanna's case, supra and Karappa Bovi's case, supra, appears to be in conflict with the decision in Laxmamma's case, supra, and therefore to resolve this dispute he formulated the above said questions for consideration and directed the matter be placed before the hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a large Bench as stated. Accordingly, the matter is before us.