SALAMMA, W/O. NANDYALAPPA @ NANJUNDAPPA Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal assails the order dated 21.11.2008 in terms of which the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition of the widow of the original grantee of land measuring 4 acres in Sy. No.26 (New Sy. No.103/2) in Block 3 and 4 at Nagadevanahalli village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The original grantee and his widow belong to the scheduled caste community. It appears that the Grant was made on 31.10.1961; it was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner on 6.8.1969; and the Saguvali chit was executed on 2.2.1970. The Grant was at a so called 'upset' price of Rs. 75/ - per acre and contains a covenant prohibiting alienation for a period of 15 years. Well before the expiry of this period, 2 acres from the granted land was sold on 30.5.1974; it was almost immediately sold again on 5.6.1974; and finally yet again on 6.2A978 to late Lingaiah whose four sons are respondent nos. 1 to 4 in this Appeal. At the conclusion of the Appeal we have been informed by learned counsel for the contesting Respondents that the entire land stands acquired. Therefore the only dispute remaining between the parties is with regard to who is entitled to the compensation. Had we learnt of this state of affairs at the commencement of the hearing we may have preferred to refer the contestants for adjudication of their claims before the Court under Section 30 and 30A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Having heard the matter in detail, we must eschew taking recourse to this convenient alternative as it would inexorably lead to further litigation. The litigation already has a chequered history. The Assistant Commissioner had restored the land to the Grantee by his order dated 20.7.1998 and the appeal filed thereafter to the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on 7,2.2000. Thereupon Writ Petition 7086/2000 was preferred by the purchaser and by order dated 4.2.2003 the matter was remanded for further consideration by the Deputy Commissioner. This time around, the Deputy Commissioner in terms of order dated 31.5.2004 allowed the appeal which resulted in the filing of the writ petition in which the impugned orders have been passed. We deprecate the practice of repeatedly remanding disputes which course is always welcomed by the purchasers since they are enjoying the possession of the land. It defeats the intendment behind the Grant as well as the objects of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain. Lands] Act, 1978 (PTCL Act for short).

(2.) THE learned single Judge has relied on Puttaveeraiah vs. State of Karnataka 1996(3) Kar.L.J. 34 (DB) , which we think is no longer the law in view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court. We say this because Guntaiah and Others Vs. Hambamma and Others, AIR 2005 SC 4013 completely answers, unfavourably to the cause of the Respondent, all the arguments raised on the latter's behalf, including the interpretation which is to be imparted to Rules 43 -G (4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules 1960. Their Lordships have opined thus: -

(3.) IT is also apparent that the onus probandi has been shifted onto the grantee, contrary to Bhadrappa (D) by LRs. Vs. Tolacha Naik, AIR 2008 SC 1080 where their Lordships after noticing the dicta in. Guntaiah, stated that by virtue of Section 5(3) of the PTCL Act the burden lies on the person in possession of granted land to establish that his possession is valid. in law. This burden has not been discharged by the purchaser in the case before us. Our analysis in this case discloses the following proposition of law: