LAWS(KAR)-2005-9-63

MANJEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Decided On September 28, 2005
MANJEGOWDA Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by the legal heir of a person who had purchased a land that; had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 4-6-1960.

(2.) SUCH land been purchased by the father of the writ petitioner in terms of sale deeds dated 5-3-1981 and 17-6-1988. In respect of the said transactions the Assistant Commissioner, having been moved by the son of the grantee, invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the act'), issued notice to the petitioner herein, who was in possession of the land, held enquiry and invalidated the sale transactions, for the reasons that the transfer of the land was after the Act came into force without prior permission of the Government as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. Further appeal to the Deputy Commissioner having failed, the present writ petition by the son of the purchaser.

(3.) SUBMISSION of Sri Rudra Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the sale has taken place after the expiry of the period upto which the grantee could not have sold the land; that in the year 1981 when the property was transferred no condition was operating on the grantee; that the Supreme Court while examining the provisions of the Act has categorically ruled that the provisions of the Act are not attracted to a situation where the transfer takes place after the period upto which the grantee was under a restraint from effecting the transfer; that if such of the observation of the Supreme Court as contained in para 17 read with para 24 of the decision in Manchegowda v. State of Karnataka AIR1984 SC 1151 , 1984 (1 )SCALE632 , (1984 )3 SCC301 , [1984 ]3 SCR502 , 1984 (16 )UJ1061 (SC ), is to be taken note of, invalidating the transfer by the original authority and affirmed in appeal by the deputy Commissioner are to be held as not valid in law and to be set aside and the application filed by the son of the grantee to be rejected.