VIJAYA MINES AND MINERALS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B Group', with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order. Respondent-4, though served, has remained absent. Notices to other respondents are dispensed with.

(2.) This petition is directed against order dated 3.8.1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E, passed by the second respondent confirming order dated 25.11.1991, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D, passed by the third respondent declaring the transfer of land bearing Survey No. 301/2 situated at Ponnachi village, Kollegal Taluk, Mysore District, in favour of the petitioner, as null and void and further directing that possession of the land in question should be handed over to respondents 4 to 7, in exercise of the power conferred on him under section 5(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act.').

(3.) Sri G.V.P. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the land in question was granted in the year 1962 and the sale of the land in question was effected on 8.12.1980, that is, after the expiry of 15 years of the prohibited period and, therefore, respondents 2 and 3 have seriously erred in law in declaring the sale of the land in question as null and void and directing resumption of the land in question from the petitioner. He submitted that though Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act provides that no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government, the said sub-section must be read along with Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act and if it is so read, it must be held that subsection (2) will apply only in cases where sale is made either in violation of the terms of the grant or the law providing for the grant. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the view taken by respondents 2 and 3 is unsustainable and consequently, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed.