ANNEPPA Vs. TAHSILDAR TQ HUMNABAD DIST BIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has purchased two lands bearing sy. Nos. 53 nad 53/2 of Bainchincholi village in Humnabad taluk under two registered sale deeds dated 17-11-1967 and 23-5-1973. He has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the first respondent and the order passed; by him as per Annexure-E dated 1-3-1984 declaring the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner as null and void under the provisions of Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 and directing handing over possession of the lands to respondents 3 to 10.

(2.) IN the first instance, proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act for short) and the order dated 28-11-1981 passed by the Asst. Commissioner was challenge in W. P. No. 32377/81 along with the Constitutional validity of the PTCL Act. This Court by order at Annexure-B dated 26-11-1983 dismissed the writ petition in so far as the challenge to the provisions of PTCL Act and quashed the order of the Asst. Commissioner and handed the Court to him for disposal in. The Asst. Commissioner was directed to dispose of the matter in the light of the observations made therein. As per Annexure-D dated 7/10-1-1984 the Asst. Commissioner issued endorsement rejecting the claim on the ground that the lands in question are on the ground that the lands in question are not granted lands but they are patta lands. Thereafter, as mentioned in Annexure-E dated 1-3-1984 it appears that the Asst. Commissioner has transferred the matter to the Taluka Magistrate and Tahsildar to consider the same under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976. The Taluka Magistrate passed the order as per Annexure-E declaring the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner as null and void and direct hand over possession of the lands to respondents 3 to 10. The same is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) I have examined the impugned order. The same is wholly unsustainable as the sale deeds pertains to the period prior to coming into force of the Karnataka Debt Relief Act. Hence, the first respondent had no jurisdiction over the matter.