CHIKKAMADAKKA Vs. DURGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the first and second respondents Peddanabovi was granted 5 acres in Sy.No. 429 in a Dharkast in the year 1956-57 with a condition that the granted land should not be sold for a period of 15 years. Petitioner purchased 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 429 (old Sy.No. 55) in Somanahalli village, Gudibande taluk, Kolar district, from respondents 1 and 2 under a registered sale-deed dated 4-12-1967. By another sale deed dated - 17-8-70 the petitioner's son purchased an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas from the same survey number from respondent-1.

(2.) The same lands, namely, 3 acres 10 guntas, out of 5 acres granted to the said Peddanabovi was again sold by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner by another registered sale - deed dated 1-6-76. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands purchased under the sale deeds dated 4-12-1967, 17-8- 1970 and 1-6-1976. After the Karnataka Sheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 the 'Act' was enacted, respondents 1 and 2 made an application to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikballapur Sub-Division for restoration of the lands sold to the petitioner under the sale deeds referred to above. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 25-10-83 declared the sale -deeds void under Section 4(1) of the Act and ordered restoration of possession to respondents -1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, who, by his order dated 26-12-86 dismissed the appeal, and upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of the Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) The sole ground on which the petitioner has challenged the two orders is, that the sale deed dated 1-6-76 was executed after 15 years from the date of grant during the year - 56-57, and the orders declaring the sales null and void under the Act is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Sri P. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his contention submitted that the title of the first respondent in the land in question was not lost and respondents - 1 and 2 were competent to transfer the very same land through the subsequent sale deed dated 1-6-1976. It was further urged that this sale deed which was executed beyond the period of alienation and cannot be declared void under the Act and the transaction conferred valid title on the purchaser.