RUKMANIYAMMA @ RUKKAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner along with her daughter made an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("the Act" for short) against respondent No. 5 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division. In that application, it was alleged that the property bearing No. 320, measuring 2 acres, situated at Hulimangala village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, belonging to the Government was granted in favour of Chikkamandera, a person belonging to Scheduled Castes community, free of cost and a Grant Certificate dated 22.7.1948 was issued with a stipulation that the granted property shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years. It was further stated that the grantee died intestate leaving behind his son Seethappa and Nanjappa, who partitioned the property in equal shares and that Seethappa having relinquished his right, title and interest of possession in respect of his share in favour of the petitioners, the revenue records were changed as per M.R. No. 34/92-93 and thus, they inherited and succeeded to the said property. Said property was alienated in favour of the 5th respondent on 7.10.1993. Alleging that the sale transaction was invalid because it was against non-alienation clause, the said application was filed. The application upon enquiry having been rejected on 8.12.2008, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner who claims under the original grantee, had moved the Assistant Commissioner for declaring the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 5 to be null and void, being violative of provisions of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner in exercise of the power under S. 5(1-A) of the Act has passed the order dated 8.12.2008 vide Annexure-F, impugned herein. The said provision reads as follows:

(2.) S. 5-A(1-A) of the Act was amended as per Karnataka Act No. 8/1992 with effect from 13.4.1992, by inserting Sub-section (1-A) and the same reads as follows:

(3.) Since the impugned order has been passed by the original authority in exercise of the power under S. 5(1-A) of the Act, holding that the transfer of granted land is not null and void, the order is appealable under S. 5A(1-A) to the Deputy Commissioner. Since the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal as against the impugned order, which has not been exhausted, this writ petition is not maintainable.