NAGAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner's counsel as well as the government pleader-Smt. Shantha kumari, appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In this present case, in spite of service of notice, respondents 5 and 6, have not put any appearance. Respondent 4, service of notice on him has been dispensed with, as the land which he had granted to the grantee, he had transferred it to respondents 5 and 6. Therefore, respondent 4's interest is represented by these respondents 5 and 6.

(2.) THE facts of the case in the nutshell are that the land was granted to eradimma bhovi, son of thimma bhovi, in 1957. The land that was granted measured 2 acres of sy. No. 15/11, vide the Order dated 17-6-1957. According to the petitioner, that the grant of land was subject to non-alienation condition, that is, land should not be alienated in any manner to any person for a period of 15 years. The grantee prior to the expiry of 15 years, on 1-12-1968, transferred the land to one nanjamma, that is, respondent 6 and said nanjamma, transferred that land to hanumakka and mara bhovi, vide sale deed dated 12-2-1969. Bettaswamy gowda, alleged to have taken the land on purchase from the grantee and bettaswamy, in his turn, sold the land, taken by him from grantee, in favour of narasimaiah by registered sale deed dated 30-10-1970 and narasimaiah, sold that very property to basave gowda, on 20-2-1975 and basave gowda thereafter, sold that very property to one ningegowda. Anyhow, proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the act, but the assistant commissioner vide his Order dated 12-3-1991, after remand of the matter for decision afresh, held that original grantee belonged to waddar caste and that waddar caste did not belong to the schedule caste community and dropped the further proceedings, though he had taken the view that the grant was a free grant. The assistant commissioner dropped the proceedings under Section 5 of the ACT having held that the grantee did belong to waddar caste and waddar caste was not one of the castes included in the schedule caste.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved from Order of the assistant commissioner, the petitioner filed the appeal before the deputy commissioner. The deputy commissioner under Section 5-a of the ACT 2 of 1979, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, as the right to appeal had been conferred to the person, against whom Order under Section 5 (l) (a) or 5 (l) (b) of the ACT was granted, that is, right to appeal was conferred on the person, who was an alienee and transfer made in his favour, under Section 5 (1) had been held to be null and void and the land was resumed either by the government or its possession was restored to the grantee, but no right was conferred on the person, whose application under Section 5, had been dismissed as not maintainable and proceedings thereunder were dropped. Feeling aggrieved from the orders of the two authorities, the petitioner has come up before this court by way of this writ petition.