BANDYAMMA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SUB DIVISION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner in this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has challenged to Order, annexure-a, made by the assistant commissioner, respondent-1 herein, and sought to quash it insofar as it relates to the rejection of restoration of the land to the petitioner, and the Order, annexure-b, made by the deputy commissioner, respondent-2 herein and has sought to quash the same for the reasons stated in the petition.

(2.) the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows: 4 acres of land in sy.no. 48/2 (new No. 56) situated in kothanur village, Bangalore south taluk, was granted by the competent authority under darkhast in proceedings No. 13/36-37, dated 27-10-1937 in favour of munidodda, father of the petitioner bandyamma, subject to certain conditions. It is stated that munidodda was a member of the scheduled caste. Following the grant, saguvali chit was also issued to him. It is stated by the petitioner that one of the conditions imposed in the grant was that the grantee was restrained from alienation the granted land for a period of 20 years. Therefore, the grantee could not have sold the granted land during the period of prohibition of 20 years. It is undisputed that munidodda, however, sold the granted land in favour of channamma, respondent-5 herein, under a registered sale deed dated 20-1-1949 for valuable consideration and that subsequently channamma sold the land to kamalaraja shetty, respondent-6 herein, who leased the land in favour of respondents 3 and 4 herein. It is again undisputed that these respondents 3 and 4 claiming to be the tenants of the land in question filed an application in form-7 under Section 49-a of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the act of 1961' for short) for registering them as occupants thereof, and that the land tribunal concerned having held an enquiry granted occupancy rights in their favour as prayed for. It is on record that the appeal filed as against the order of the land. .tribunal granting occupancy in favour of respondents 3 and 4 is still pending. According to the petitioner, though the land was alienated by munidodda, original grantee, he continued to be in possession and enjoyment thereof till his death and thereafter she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, according to here, in the meanwhile, she approached the assistant commissioner with an application for restoration of the land to her 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) on the ground that her father munidodda transferred the land in favour of channamma in contravention of the terms of the grant and that therefore she was entitled to restoration of the same. On the said application, the assistant commissioner initiated proceedings, issued notice to the parties interested, held an enquiry and disposed of the matter by his Order, annexure-a, dated 21-2-1989 declaring the alienations of the granted land in question as null and void under Section 4 of the act on the ground of contravention of the condition of the grant and directing vesting the land to the government as, according to him, the petitioner failed to prove that she was the daughter of munidodda, original grantee so as to enable her to get back the land. Aggrieved by the said Order, respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the deputy commissioner, who having heard the learned counsel on both sides allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the assistant commissioner on the ground that the rules under which the land was granted to munidodda did not provide for imposition of any condition prohibiting the grantee from alienating the granted land and that that being the position the grantee being free to dispose of the land granted to him, at any time, question of contravention of the condition of the grant did not arise and hence the alienations in question being valid in law could not be interfered with. Aggrieved by this order as also the order of the assistant commissioner refusing to restore the land to the petitioner, she has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the said orders on more than one ground.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel on both sides including Sri Siddagangaiah, learned high court government pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 herein.