THEMMAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by the alienee, who had purchased the granted land from respondent 3, vide, sale deed dated 5-4-1968 and 28-5-1969, challenging the orders passed by the assistant commissioner dated 25-4-1992, Annexure-B to the writ petition and the order of the deputy commissioner in appeal dated 15-2-1996. The petitioner has sought quashing of these orders by issue of writ of certiorari and also prayed for direction to be issued to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from 2 acres of land of sy. No. 44/1 and new No. 78 of bydarahalli village, tiptur taluk, tumkur district.

(2.) THE facts so far as concerned there is not much dispute. petitioner's counsel admitted that the father of respondent 3 namely mudalaiah in whose favour the land was granted on 16-5-1949 vide, annexure-a, belonged to adi-dravida caste. learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute that so far as the grant is concerned. It was a free grant and that in 1949, as per Rule 43 (g) of the Mysore land revenue code, the grantees were prohibited for ever from making any transfer of the granted land. Only exception was that the granted land could be offered and be accepted as a security for the loan taken from the government or from co-operative societies or co-operative banks. It has also been provided it was limited to the loans taken for the purpose of improving the granted land. Except for this clause, there had been permanent bar against alienation of the granted land. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the grantee did not belong to the scheduled caste, though at the time of the grant, he belonged to adi-dravida community. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the concept of scheduled caste came into picture and operation only after 26th of january, 1950, when the Constitution of India came to be enforced and as such during 1949, it cannot be said that the grant was made in favour of a scheduled caste person, as there did not exist any such thing as scheduled caste. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this is the sole and only point he can urge in this case and he urges that this is an important point to be considered.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner's counsel has very hotly been contested by learned government pleader Smt. Shantha kumari. The learned government pleader contended that the expression 'depressed class' used refers to the persons or communities coming under the schedule prepared or issued under the constitution. The learned government pleader contended that here it only means that scheduled caste under the act should be taken to mean to be the castes which were later on taken and categorised as scheduled caste in the list issued by the president or amended subsequently and if the caste of the person has been such which has been included in the scheduled caste, the grant shall be taken and deemed to have been made in favour of scheduled caste for the purpose of act No. 2 of 1979 that is Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition on transfer of certain lands) Act, 1979 and adi-dravida caste is beyond doubt included in the list of scheduled caste and the act did apply and as the grant was a free grant of land and there was complete non alienation clause, therefore transfer of the granted land made by the grantee in favour of the petitioner vide, sale deed dated 28-5-1969 was rightly held to be illegal, invalid, null and void.