N KEMPANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this petition is posted for preliminary hearing in 'b group', with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.

(2.) IN this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 27-10-1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-D , passed by the second respondent confirming order dated 31-3-1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C , passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 2 acres in survey No. 109/33 situated at andrahalli village, chennarayapatna hobli, devanahalli taluk, Bangalore district, made by one muniveerappa in favour of the petitioner as null and void and further directing that the 4th respondent should be put in possession of the said land.

(3.) SRI vishwanath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record in as much as the orders impugned came to be passed without considering the plea of adverse possession raised by the petitioner in respect of the land in question. According to the learned counsel, the land in question was sold by the 4th respondent to one muniveerappa by means of a registered sale deed dated 16-8-1961 and thereafter, from the said muniveerappa, the petitioner has purchased the land in question by means of a registered sale deed dated 8th february, 1963 and ever since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the said land and, therefore, the petitioner having perfected his title by adverse possession in respect of the land in question, the sale of the land in question could not have been declared as null and void under the Provisions of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ). It is also vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard by the third respondent before passing the impugned order Annexure-C. The learned counsel further submitted that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of the defence by the state during the pendency of the appeal before the second respondent and, therefore, the direction given by the second respondent directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the land in question is required to be declared as illegal and the entire proceedings initiated by the second respondent is required to be quashed as the land in question is not available to be handed over to the 4th respondent.