(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -purchaser submits that land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.27 of Kurubaragere village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapur taluk, when granted under the Land Grant Rules and a grant certificate issued on 24.12.1955 in favour of one Palakala Narasimhappa, belonging to the scheduled caste, laced with a condition of non -alienation for a period of 15 years, was conveyed under a registered sale deed dated 2.4.1969, well within the period of non alienation, following which was a conveyance by yet another sale deed dated 2.5.1973 and the purchasers in turn conveyed the said property in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dt. 23.8.1985, while the representation dated 16.1.2008 is of a person claiming through the grantee, hence the orders impugned of the Assistant Commissioner and that of Deputy Commissioner in appeal suffer from the following legal infirmities:
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and examined the orders impugned, there is no more dispute over facts. The submission that there is inordinate delay in making a representation dated 16.1.2008 to hold an enquiry under the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for short 'Act', to declare as null and void the transaction of sale of granted land, on the premise that the Apex Court in the case of Ningappa v - Deputy Commisioner in Civil Appeal No.3131/2007 observed that if there is inordinate delay in questioning the transfer of the granted land, as illegal, under the Act, no relief is permissible cannot be countenanced in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in Sri.G.M.Venkata Reddy v - Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and others, 2012 6 KarLJ 3168observing thus:
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no request to declare as null and void the sale transaction dated 2.5.1973 by the purchaser of the land from Palakala Narasimhappa and therefore, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner call for interference, cannot be countenanced. Admittedly the land was granted on 24.12.1955 with a non alienation condition of 15 years which would end on 23.12.1970, while the first transfer of land was on 2.4.1969 in favour of Jayamma, well within the non alienation period and therefore was struck by the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act and hence justifiably declared as null and void. If that is so, all other transactions thereto cannot but be said to be null and void since the purchasers under subsequent transactions did not acquire a better title than what was conveyed under the sale transaction dated 2.4.1969, since declared null and void. In any event, the executors of the sale deed dated 2.5.1973 being the legal heirs of Jayamma divested their right, title and interest in the land after a conveyance in favour of Sonnappa, the vendor -in -tile of the petitioner, who too divested his right, title and interest in the property, in favour of the petitioner.