LEELA MENON Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the purchaser of the land in dispute. The Land in dispute in W.P. No. 7073/2007 was purchased by the petitioner from the respondents 5 to 8 under a sale deed dated 26.09.1998, as at Annexure -A. The said sale deed having been declared as null and void by the 2nd respondent, in case No. K.SC.ST/59/02 -03, in exercise of power under S. 5 of the Karnataka Act 2 of 1979 and ordered to be resumed free from all encumbrances and restore to the grantee, vide an order dated 25.11.2003 and appeal under S. 5 -A of the Act, in Case No. K.SC.ST. No. 81/2005 -06 filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the 2nd respondent, by an order dated 04.04.2007, as at Annexure -E, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE Land in dispute in W.P. No. 7074/2007 was purchased by the petitioner from the respondents 5(a) to 5(f) under a sale deed dated 28.09.1998, as at Annexure -A. The said sale deed having been declared as null and void by the 2nd respondent, in case No. K.SC.ST/61/2002 -03, in exercise of power under S. 5 of the Karnataka Act 2 of 1979 and ordered to be resumed free from all encumbrances and restore to the grantee, vide an order dated 25.11.2003 and appeal under S. 5 -A of the Act, in Case No. K.SC.ST. No. 83/2005 -06 filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the 2nd respondent, by an order dated 04.04.2007, as at Annexure -E, the writ petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI . S. Shekar Shetty, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have failed to appreciate the material fact that the land/s in dispute were not free granted lands, so as to attract the provisions of the Act and that they have failed to appreciate that the grantee/s had applied for permission and obtained the permission of the competent authority for transfer of the land/s. Along with a memo dated 22.07.2013, communications issued by the Deputy Commissioner with regard to the permission granted by the Government for alienation of subject land/s was produced. Learned counsel submitted that, to the show cause notice/s issued by the Assistant Commissioner, in each of the cases, separate reply/objections having been filed, the Assistant Commissioner has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with law i.e., by following the procedure under S. 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by giving. reasonable opportunity. Learned counsel submitted that, even the Appellate Authority has failed to notice that the order/s passed by Assistant Commissioner are in violation of the provision under Rule 3(5) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules 1979. Learned counsel contended that the impugned order/s being arbitrary and vitiated, are unsustainable.