C N Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this is a petition for review of an order passed by an earlier division bench consisting of mohan, c.j. and shivaraj patil, j. On 27th september, 1991, dismissing the writ appeal No. 2473 of 1991 filed by the present petitioners, who are the heirs of the original writ petitioner viz., c.n. byrappa.

(2.) a few facts which are leading to the present review proceedings deserved to be noted at the outset. The original writ" petitioner, who filed writ petition No. 5206 of 1987 under article 226 of the constitution, had called in question the correctness and legality of the orders of the assistant commissioner (3rd respondent herein) at Annexure a to the petition as well as the deputy commissioner (2nd respondent herein) at Annexure b to the petition, respectively. The dispute centered round 3a-09g out of 09a-28g of land in sy. No. 90 of chandalapura village, chickaballapur taluk, kolar district. These lands were granted in favour of kempanna father of chowdappa, 4th respondent herein, by an order made by the competent authority on 29th December 1930 applying the Karnataka land grant rules subject to certain conditions. One such condition was that the grantee shall not alienate the granted land at any time. It is the case of the petitioners that the granted land came to be sold by the 4th respondent after the death of his father by a registered sale deed dated 9-12-1940 in favour of one munivenkatappa son of thoti thimma, who in turn, sold 3a-09g out of the granted land, in favour of doddanagappa son of hanumanthappa, by a registered sale deed dated 4-8-1952. On the death of the said doddanagappa, the khata of the land came to be transferred in favour of his son c.n. byrappa - the original writ petitioner.

(3.) the Karnataka state legislature enacted the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the 'act'] which came into force on 1-1-1979. Under this, Act, the original grantee or his legal heir is entitled to apply to the authority concerned for restoration of the granted land after resumption from the alienee or their successor-in-interest, on the ground that the transfer of such land was in contravention of the terms of the grant, as per Section 4 of the act. Accordingly, the 4th respondent applied under Section 4 of the act. The assistant commissioner, chickaballapur subdivision (respondent-3) having heard the parties, came to the conclusion that the transaction in favour of the original writ petitioner had become null and void in view of the Provisions of the Act, and therefore, pursuant to Section 5 of the Act, he granted restoration of the land to the original grantee or his son claiming under him. The original writ petitioner carried the matter before the deputy commissioner, kolar district in appeal. That appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the original writ petitioner approached this court through the writ petition as aforesaid.