RACHAIAH Vs. RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal has been filed against an order dtd. 23/9/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 has been allowed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.12/9 measuring 4 acres situated at Mellahalli Village was granted in favour of Mugaiah @ Kengaiah on 17/12/1955. The aforesaid land was conveyed by registered sale deed dtd. 28/4/1975 which inturn was conveyed in favour of respondent No.1 by a registered sale deed dtd. 6/8/1984. The legal representatives of deceased original grantee filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 23/6/2007 for resumption and restoration of the land. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application. Against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the legal representatives of original grantee filed an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner, by an order dtd. 19/5/2009, remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to ascertain whether the condition imposed prohibiting alienation of land was for a period of 15 years or 20 years. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dtd. 27/4/2015, restored the land in favour of the State Government. The Deputy Commissioner, by an order dtd. 5/11/2019, dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were assailed in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by taking into account the well settled legal position, has allowed the writ petition and has quashed the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in not appreciating that the lands in question were sold in violation of the condition of grant. It is further submitted that the transaction in question was illegal and it was hit by the provisions of the Act.