KOTTAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing order dated 21st July 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, passed by the second respondent confirming the order dated 2nd May 1984, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 11/23 of Kallajjnagal village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District, as null and void and further directing that possession of the land, referred to above, should be handed over to the original grantee of the said land, one Hanumantha Bhovi (deceased 4th respondent), 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).

(2.) Sri B. Rudragowda, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record and liable to be quashed as the said orders came to be passed without there being any enquiry held by the third respondent as required under Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. He further submitted that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 have failed to consider that the petitioner has perfected his title in respect of the land in question by adverse possession.

(3.) Sri M. Siddagangaiah, Learned High Court Government Pleader, supported the orders impugned and submitted that there is absolutely no merit in this petition and therefore the same is liable to be rejected by this Court. He submitted that both respondents 2 and 3 have concurrently found that the land in question came to be sold in violation of the terms of the grant. He further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him for any equitable relief at the hands of this Court as the petitioner has suppressed the facts that there was a detailed order passed by the third respondent and the petitioner has made an incorrect statement in the petition stating that there is no separate order other than the order-sheet Annexure-A, passed by the third respondent.