K V RAJASEKARAPPA Vs. TAHASILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Reference has been placed before us today as per the order of the Chief Justice dated 8. 12. 2003.

(2.) THE necessary facts of the case are: the land in Sy. No. 286 of Kotekere Village, Gundlupet taluk was granted during 1960-61 in favour of Dodda Madaiah as a lease grant and subsequently it was granted by the Deputy commissioner by order dated 8. 12. 1963. Thereafter the said land was purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed on 3. 2. 1975 and is in possession of the same. However, the Tahsildar initiated enquiry for the alleged violation of the terms of grant. The 2nd respondent- Asst. Commissioner vide order dated 19. 12. 1963 has held that the sale is in violation of the provisions of Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act. On appeal being filed, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the said appeal on 28. 2. 2001. The same was challenged in Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge by a detailed order considered that there being contradictory opinions in the two Full Bench decisions, the same required reconsideration and thus referred the matter to a Larger Bench by order dated 28. 10. 2003 to consider the following questions. 1. Whether Rule 43-G of the Mysore Land Revenue Rule stipulating imposition of conditions regarding non-alienation etc. , in respect of the lands granted to the persons specified therein, is special Rule or not? if it is a special Rule, is it not in conflict with Rule 43j which does not stipulate imposition of any such conditions to the grants made thereunder? 2. Whether Rule 43-J of Rules of 1960 not providing for imposition of condition regarding non-alienation and other conditions on the granted lands, is not contrary to Section 3 of the government Grants Act, 1898 and Section 39, 233 and 234 of Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888 and can it have the over-riding effect of them, as the rule being sub-ordinate legislation?

(3.) WHETHER Rule 43 (J) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to rule 43 (E), 43 (G) for not providing imposition of conditions regarding non-alienation etc. , as provided in Rule 43 (G) in respect of the lands leased and thereafter granted?