MUNIYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AND SRI H.N. PRAKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application filed under S. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') before the 2nd respondent having been allowed on 07.03.2011, vide order as at Annexure -F, the 3rd respondent having purchased the land in dispute, filed an appeal before the 1st respondent under S. 5 -A of the Act. In the said appeal, a joint memo, as at Annexure -K, having been filed and the appeal having been allowed in terms of the joint memo on 17.10.2012, vide an order, as at Annexure -L, these writ petitions have been filed to quash the orders, as at Annexures -L and F. Sri S. Venkatesh Shastry, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the 1st respondent has acted arbitrarily and illegally in allowing the appeal based on a joint memo. He submitted that the land in dispute being a granted land with a restrictive covenant/clause of non -alienation for ever and respondent. No. 2 having rightly allowed the application and declared the sale transactions as null and void, since there was no prior permission of the Government for transfer of the property, 1st respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction in receiving the joint memo and mechanically allowing the appeal. He submitted that the 1st respondent ought to have examined the record of the case and decided the matter in accordance with law. He submitted that the illiteracy and ignorance of the petitioner No. 1 and one Bettappa, father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 has been taken advantage of by the 3rd respondent - appellant No. 1 and the impugned order having been passed by the 1st respondent, without lawful consideration of the appeal, interference is warranted.

(2.) SRI K. Surya Prakash Rao, learned advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand contended that the joint memo, as at Annexure -K has been signed not only by the petitioner No. 1 and late Bettappa, but also by their learned advocate and the contents of the memo being correct, 1st respondent is justified in receiving the said joint memo on record and in allowing the appeal. Learned counsel contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable, since, respondents 3 and 4 in Appeal No. 1/2011 -12, on the file of the 1st respondent have not been impleaded as parties. He submitted that the application filed before the 2nd respondent, without impleading the 3rd respondent, who had purchased the property in dispute on 10.02.2005 was not maintainable and the 2nd respondent has acted arbitrarily and illegally in allowing the application on 07.03.2011 and in declaring all the sale transactions of the property in dispute as null and void and ordering resumption of the property free from all encumbrances and restoration to the applicant. He further submitted that the order as at Annexure -L having been passed behind the back of the 3rd respondent, being opposed to all canons of law, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) PERUSED the writ record. The point for consideration in the light of the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties is whether the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as at Annexures - L and F respectively, warrant any interference?