Y M NAGARAJA HEREKEREHALLY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAND bearing old Sy. No. 101, new No. 203 measuring 3-00 acres of Hirekerehalli Village in molakalmuru Taluk was granted in favour of petitioner's father under darkhast on 23-11-1963 with a condition that it shall not be sold within 15 years. However, the grantee sold the land in the year 1966 to one Smt. Thimmakka. But the said sale was held null and void under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain Lands) Act by an order dated 11-6-1981. Instead of restoring the land to the grantee, granted in favour of 4th respondent by the Tahsildar on 29-12-1984. Since the original grantee died, his son, the petitioner herein, approached the Assistant Commissioner seeking restoration of the land. The Assistant Commissioner by his order at Annexure-A, dated 25-1-2002 set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 16-10-1984 and directed restoration of the land to the petitioner. In the appeal preferred against the said order by the 4th respondent, the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order at Annexure-B, dated 30-10-2002 set aside the order of the Assistant commissioner at Annexure-A. Petitioner is seeking to quash the said order.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the orders at Annexures-A and B.

(3.) THE facts as such are not in dispute. Since the land in question was granted under darkhast with a non-alienation condition for 15 years, the Assistant Commissioner has held that the sale as null and void by his order dated 11-6-1981 and directed restoration of the land to the grantee. Instead of restoring the land to the grantee, the Tahsildar granted it to the 4th respondent by his order dated 16-10-1984, grant certificate dated 25-12-1984 was issued. By doing so, the tahsildar has not only violated the order dated 11-6-1981 of the Sub-Divisional Officer but also assumed jurisdiction which does not vest with him. Since the sale of the land was held null and void under Section 5 (1) of the Act, the land ought to have been restored to the grantee. But the tahsildar has deviated from it and granted the land to 4th respondent contrary to the provisions of the Act. The mistake committed by the Tahsildar was rectified by the Assistant Commissioner by his order at Annexure-A by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar and directing restoration of the land to the petitioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The same should have been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Contrary to that, he has allowed the appeal of 4th respondent and set aside the order at annexure-A.