MUNISWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under article 226, has been preferred from the order of the deputy commissioner, kolar, dated 23-3-1992. the petitioner has sought the quashing of the order as mentioned earlier and the order of the assistant commissioner.

(2.) AN application was made under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1979, namely 'act 2 of 1979'. the petitioner had alleged that land was granted to him in june, 1949 and saguvali chit was issued on 4-8-1949. Alienation was made on 26-5-1962 and that the transaction was invalid, because it was against non-alienation clause. Petitioner claim himself to be scheduled caste and the land was a free grant. The petitioner challenged the order of the original authority rejecting his application taking the view that the alienation had been made after 10 years from the date of grant. When the matter came up in appeal, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal taking the view that the appeal was not maintainable and deputy commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the order passed under Section 5 of the act 2 of 1979, rejecting the application. The deputy commissioner's order indicates that the deputy commissioner placed reliance on a decision of this court in hanumantharayappa v chief secretary, zilla parishad, tumkur. Except giving the number of the writ petition, neither the particulars regarding the date of the decision nor the names of the parties in the writ petition are being indicated in the order of the appellate authority.

(3.) I summoned the file on writ petition No. 16269 of 1987, namely, hanumantharayappa's case, supra. That writ petition's order sheet indicates that it had been dismissed for default vide the order dated 15th july, 1988, by the Hon'ble chief justice. It relates to the matter of election of the pradhan. So, the order referred to in the judgment as per reference given in the order of the appellate authority, is not applicable to this case on hand. anyway, non-maintainability of the appeal is concerned, a reading of Section 5-a per se reveals that appeals have been provided from orders of two categories. Section 5-a of the act reads as under: