M RAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the second purchasers of land in dispute. That according to the petitioners case as pleaded in the writ petitions, respondents 4 to 9 were grantees of land in dispute. That the respondents 4 to 9 sold the aforesaid land to one Avalkondappa by registered sale deed. That the petitioners allege to have purchased the land from said Avalkondappa the original purchaser of land from respondents 4 to 9. According to the petitioners case respondents 4 to 9 were grantees of land on payment of the upset price and they have sold the same land to one Avalkondappa vide register sale deed. Thereafter two petitioners purchased the property in dispute in the proportion as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners claim that after having purchased the land they planted coconut and fruit bearing trees and spent lot of money for raising certain other crops. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 to 9 filed an application before the 3rd respondent namely Assistant Commissioner with the allegations to the effect that they belonged to Scheduled Caste Community and they have been grantees of the land. The land had been sold by them to the petitioners but the sale is in violation of the conditions of grant and as such they sought restoration of the possession of the land in their favour. This application was filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka SC and ST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The petitioners case is that on notice being served on them, the petitioners put in their appearance before the Assistant Commissioner and their case has been to the effect that if the land has been granted to respondents 4 to 9 for an upset price there was no condition prohibiting the alienation of the said land. The petitioners further averred that they have also brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner the fact of improvement which have been carried on by the petitioners in the said land. That vide order dated 23-11-1991 the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application of respondents 4 to 9. After having taken the view that the transaction of sale was violative of the condition which prohibits alienation of the land for a period of 15 years and as such the transaction of sale in favour of Sri Avalkondappa as well as in favour of the present petitioners was illegal or null and void.

(3.) Having felt aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 5(a) of the Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 23-11-1991. By his order dated October 12, 1994 the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District dismissed the petitioners appeal and affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. After having taken the view that though Rule 9 provided for and imposed the non-alienation condition of 15 years in all cases of land grant but in spite of that condition the transfer has been made by the grantees and so the transfer has been illegal or null and void.