HANUMAPPA Vs. HONNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate authority, namely the special deputy commissioner, dated 27-10-1986, in scptl (a) 237/84/85, vide, Annexure-D to the writ petition whereby, the deputy commissioner has set aside the order of the assistant commissioner, dated 3-9-1979, in case No. Scptl 4/79-80.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nut-shell are that land measuring 10 acres of sy. No. 47/2 of village purlahalli in challakere taluk was granted to hanumanthappa on 5-2-1957. The grantee by virtue of sale deed dated 18-5-1964, transferred the entire granted land in favour of halappa s/o jannappa. According to the petitioner's case, the assistant commissioner, chitradurga sub-division, chitradurga, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka state SC and ST (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (act 2 of 1979) and after due notice to the alienee he passed the order on 3-9-1979, declaring the transfer deed dated 18-5-1964, to be null and void, as being opposed to the non-alienation clause and directed restoration of possession of the land against the alienee in favour of the grantee. The assistant commissioner held that the sale of the land to the alienee, namely halappa was contrary to the conditions of the grant and so null and void.

(3.) HAVING felt aggrieved from the order of the assistant commissioner, dated 3/4-9-1979, the petitioner preferred the appeal No. 237/84-85. The special deputy commissioner, chitradurga, allowed the appeal by order dated 27th october, 1986 and set aside the order of the assistant commissioner dated 3-9-1979. The deputy commissioner has opined that though the transfer was illegal, being in violation of the non-alienation clause and it had taken place during the period of prohibition, contained in non-alienation clause, yet the transferee has perfected his title over the granted land by enjoying it for 14 years on 1-1-1979 and for this reason, the alienation made in his favour cannot become null and void, nor can the land be restored to the grantee or his heirs. It may be mentioned here that the appeal had been filed originally by the alienee and he having died, the present respondent 1-honnappa has continued the appeal in the representative capacity representing all the legal heirs of deceased alienee.