R. VAMSIDHAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner on the petition filed by respondents 3(a) to 3(c) herein seeking review of the order passed by him on 27-9-2012 in Appeal No. SC/ST/A/120/11-12. Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of 25 guntas of land out of Survey No. 147 which totally measured 2 acres 8 guntas under a registered sale deed dated 20-7-2007 from one Sri Ramanjaneya. Without impleading the petitioner, legal representatives of the original grantee namely respondents 3(a) to 3(c) herein sought for resumption and restoration of the entire land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 18-4-2011 declared that the land was a granted land and the sale deeds executed in respect of the said land in favour of respondents therein (Sri K. Suresh and Smt. Dhanalakshmi-respondents 4 and 5 herein) were as null and void. He further directed for resumption of the land free from all encumbrances and for restoration of the same in favour of the original grantee or his legal representatives. As the entire land was ordered to be resumed and restored without impleading the present petitioner, he filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5(1-A) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the petitioner, legal representatives of the grantee and the other purchasers held that the land was granted prior to 1933-1934 with non-alienation condition of 20 years from the date of grant. He further found that the first alienation having been made after the expiry of non-alienation period of 20 years, transfer of the land vide sale deed executed on 17-8-1963 was a valid transaction as the same was effected after the non-alienation period was over. The Deputy Commissioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manchegozvda and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1984 2 KarLJ 1In the penultimate paragraph of the order, the Deputy Commissioner has held as under:

(3.) As regards the grievance made by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, in paragraph 7 of the order dated 27-9-2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he has observed as under: