BANGARAPPA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is by persons who claim that they are in possession of an extent of 2 acres of land in Survey No. 104 of Anantapura Village, yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and who are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner which order came to be affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the Act')

(2.) WHAT is principally urged is that the provisions of the Act were not attracted at all to the situation in which the petitioners were placed; that the petitioners are claiming possession of the land from the year 1971; that there was no interference or disruption of possession and enjoyment of the land; that in respect of subject-matter land, the respondent 3 had instituted a suit in O. S. No. 88 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural district; that the suit continues to be pending and even during such pendency of the suit itself, the respondent 3 had also filed an application under the provisions of the Act, contending that the land in question was a land which had been transferred by his mother in the year 1984 receiving consideration of Rs. 1,000/; that therefore transaction was to be invalidated etc. , and the Assistant Commissioner had erroneously allowed such an application and in the appeal the Deputy Commissioner compounded the error by holding that apart from the so-called transaction of the year 1984, even admittedly the petitioners being in possession of the land from the year 1971 which was a granted land and in view of the provisions of Section 5 (3) read with Section 4 (1) of the Act action was warranted in terms of the order passed by the Assistant commissioner and having dismissed the appeal, questioning the correctness of such orders the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) SUBMISSION of Sri C. B. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the authorities under the Act did not have an occasion to examine the matter; that it was a clear case of the petitioners that there was no transaction in the nature of 'transfer as defined under Section 3 (l) (e) of the Act; that in the absence of a transfer which is a transfer within the meaning of this expression occurring under Section 3 (l) (e) of the Act, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act are also not attracted, in which event, the authorities do not get any jurisdiction under the Act; that the entire exercise was an exercise not warranted in law; that the proceedings are required to be quashed.