G N VEMAREDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this petition is directed against the Order dated 16-9-1991, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-d, passed by the second respondent confirming the Order dated 22-7-1989, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-c, passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 3 acres 14 guntas in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, srinivasapura taluk, kolar district, made by one gopalappa in favour of the petitioner as null and void and further directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the said land to the said gopalappa (deceased 4th respondent).

(2.) the brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition, are these: land, measuring 2 acres in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, srinivasapura taluk, kolar district, was granted to the deceased 4th respondent one gopalappa, by means-of Order dated 21-9-1954 with a condition that the said land should not be alienated by the grantee for a period of 20 years from the date of the grant. Sub-rule (8) of rule 43 of the mysore land revenue code, 1888 and rules framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to as "the rules"), which was framed by the state in exercise of its power under Section 233 of the land revenue code, also prohibited the alienation of the land granted to the depressed class of persons for an upset price or reduced upset price for a period of 20 years from the date of the grant. Pursuant to the grant made in favour of the said gopalappa, saguvali chit dated 11th september 1954 also was issued to the said gopalappa putting him in possession of the said 2 acres of land. Saguvali chit specifically provided that the land granted should not be alienated for a period of 20 years. Thereafter, on the recommendation made by the divisional commissioner, bangalore division, another extent of land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas comprised in survey No. 11 of gummareddypura village, was granted to the said gopalappa at an upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre subject to recovery of back assessment from the year of the original grant made in favour of the said gopalappa by the government in exercise of the power vested in rule 43, by means of the Order dated 24-6-1966, the copy of which has been produced as annexure-b. Since the major dispute in this petition revolves round the said 1 acre 14 guntas of land, which has been granted as per annexure-b, it is useful to extract the said Order, which reads thus:

(3.) Sri b.t. parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the orders to the entire extent of 3 acres 14 guntas, which was purchased by the petitioner by means of a registered sale deed dated 26-3-1967, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and with a view to give a quietus to the litigation, the petitioner would give up his challenge to the extent of 2 acres, which was granted to the said gopalappa by means of the Order dated 21-9-1954 and he has no objection for this court confirming the orders impugned in so far as they relate to 2 acres of land in survey No. 11. However, in so far as 1 acre 14 guntas of land which was granted to the said gopalappa subsequently is concerned; he submitted that the orders impugned are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside on that ground. According to him, the said extent of land was not sold by the original grantee in violation of either the terms of the grant or the law governing the grant and therefore the provisions of the ACT cannot be made applicable in so far as the said 1 acre 14 guntas of land is concerned. It is bis further submission that as can be seen from the Order at annexure-b, the land in question came to be granted to the grantee for an upset price of Rs. 50/- per acre by the state after relaxing rule 42 of the rules in exercise of the power vested under rule 43-l of the rules. According to the learned counsel, in respect of the land granted for an upset price, there was no provision made in the rules which prohibited the alienation of the land within any particular period. In this connection, he drew my attention to sub-rule (4) of rule 43-g of the rules, which reads thus: