M MUNIKENCHAPPA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a person who had filed an application under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short), claiming to be a legal heir of an original grantee namely, one Mr. Doddamuniswamy, a person belonging to Scheduled caste and who had been granted an extent of four acres of land in survey No. 107 (Present Sy No. 163) of Pattandur Agrahara of K. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

(2.) THE land in question appears to have been sold by the said doddamuniswamy on 23-10-1967 in favour of one Era Reddy, who in turn had sold it to others and ultimately is now traceable in the hands of respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner requested the Assistant commissioner to invalidate the transactions as being in violation of the terms of the grant and for restoration of the land to the petitioner. The assistant Commissioner who had issued notice of the application and who had held an enquiry, was of the view that the land in question cannot be termed as a 'granted land' within the meaning of Section 3 (l) (b) of the Act and accordingly rejected the application. The appeal preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, also having been dismissed by an order dated 3-11-2003 (copy at Annexure-A), petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) THE authorities below were of the view that the land in question was not a granted land for the reason that the land had been originally granted to the grandfather of the petitioner by an order dated 3-2-1962 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition under the provisions of Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous)Inams Abolition Act, 1954 ('the Inams Abolition Act' for short ). The authorities also found that the order was not one granting any land in favour of the petitioner's grandfather who in fact had sought for conferment of occupancy rights as an applicant and as a permanent tenant and it was only this right that the Special Deputy Commissioner had confirmed and that the land which was already in possession of the petitioner's grandfather continued to remain so under this order also. The Assistant Commissioner, by following the ruling of this Court rendered in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another v State of karnataka and Others, and applying the same held that the transaction sought to be invalidated was not one attracting the provisions of the Act.