V NARASIMHAIAH Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is by persons, who had been granted land to an extent of two acres in old Sy. No. 153 (New Sy. No. 208) of Hoodi Village, Bangalore South Taluk, which on grant and proper survey was found' to be available only to an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas in terms of a grant order dated 22-2-1961 and the first sale transaction in respect of this land was in the year 1963 and the subsequent sale by the purchaser before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands)Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act') having failed and also being not successful before the Deputy commissioner in appeal for getting over such orders the present petition.

(2.) THE 1st petitioner claiming to be a legal heir of the grantee, the 2nd petitioner had initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner for action to invalidate the sale transaction. A sale deed executed by the grantee in the year 1963 in favour of one Munishamappa who in turn had sold the same in favour of the 4th respondent in terms of another sale deed of the year 1969, on the premise that the land in question was a land that had been granted to the 2nd petitioner-Munishamappa as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community and with certain terms and conditions in the year 1961; that such land had been transferred in the year 1963 in violation of the terms of the grant i. e. , just after a period of two years, whereas even if the land should have been granted on fixing an upset price and collecting the same, condition is that it should not be transferred for a period of 10 years that a transaction of this nature is hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and for consequential action etc.

(3.) THE Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the 4th respondent, held an enquiry. The 4th respondent contested the proceedings mainly on the ground that the 1st petitioner in this writ petition had no locus to main an application; that even during the lifetime of the original grantee other persons cannot claim as their legal heirs; that either the grantee or his real heirs have not initiated any proceedings; that the applicant had failed to make good the conditions of the grant for indicating that the transfer was in violation of the same and more over the land in question having been acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short. , 'the Board') by the Government, the question of resumption of the land and restoration does not arise and, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected etc. The Assistant commissioner, who noticed the factual position that the land in question was a granted land and that it was granted, applicant was not the grantee or a legal heir of the grantee, nor any such persons had appeared before him and that the applicant had failed to make good that the land had been granted on fixing an upset price; but found it fit not to record any findings; that both the applicant as well as the respondent admitted that the land in question had been acquired for the benefit of the Board and accordingly rejected the application.