MANCHEGOWDA BIN NANJEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, namely Sri L.S. Chikkanna Goudar in Writ Petition Nos. 20296 of 1994, 22059 of 1994, 26401 of 1994 and in Writ Petition No. 20281 of 1994, as well as Sri Shivappa, who appears for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993 and in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1994. Sri Shivappa appears for respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 20296 of 1994, 22059 of 1994, 22401 of 1994 and 20281 of 1994, while Sri Chikkanna Goudar appears for respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993 and Sri N. Shankaranarayana Bhat for respondents in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1994. I have heard Sri Bhat as well. That one common point arises in all these petitions as such these petitions are being disposed of by one common judgment.

(2.) The grantee Smt. Nanjamma, respondent 7 in Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993, is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 20296 of 1994. She is alleged to be belonging to Scheduled Caste as she hails from Adi Karnataka caste. She was granted one acre of land in Sy. No. 95/2 in village Heggur of Bannur Hobli vide order dated 3-11-1959 passed in case No. A.3D.R. 262/59-60. The grant was a temporary one for five years. Later on vide order dated 17-10-1962 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Special D.D.C. 113/61-62 she was granted a permanent grant to make use of the land under rules read with Sec. 58 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1888. In the copy of the Saguvali Chit issued to Smt. Nanjamma one of the conditions had been made or mentioned prohibiting the grantee from making alienation of the granted land for a period of 15 years from the date of grant. In the year 1969, may be 3-5-1969, the grantee by registered sale deed transferred the granted land in favour of Manchegowda, the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993 who is respondent 4 in Writ Petition 20296 of 1994 filed by Nanjamma. The alienation was made in 1969. Proceedings under Sec. 5 of the Act 2 of 1979 were taken for resumption of land and the Assistant Commissioner after necessary enquiry by an order dated 14-6-1994 passed the order declaring the alienation of the granted land in favour of the respondent in Writ Petition Nos. 20296 of 1994, 22059 of 1994, 22401 of 1994 and 20281 of 1994 to be illegal, null and void in view of the provisions of Sec. 4, on account of transfer having been made in violation of the non-alienation clause imposing a bar or prohibition on the right of the grantee to make transfer of the land and directing him not to transfer land for 15 years and ordered resumption of the land as well as restoration thereof in favour of Nanjamma. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Manchegowda, the transferee filed appeals under Sec. 5-A of Act No. 2 of 1979. The Deputy Commissioner during the pendency of the appeal had granted a stay order on 18-5-1993 periodically and it was extended as per Annexures A, A-1, B, B-1, C, C-1, E and F to Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993. The stay was vacated vide order 3-9-1993 and mahazar Annexure-H was drawn for effecting a transfer of possession. The alienee, Manchegowda had filed Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993 challenging the order whereby order of interim stay granted in the appeals had been vacated. During the pendency of these writ petitions, the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner decided the appeals filed by the alienee Manchegowda vide order dated 14-6-1994. The Deputy Commissioner, who has been arrayed as respondent 3 in the writ petitions filed by the grantees and has been arrayed as respondent 2 in the writ petition filed by the alienee, allowed the appeals filed by the transferee Manchegowda, the petitioner in the three petitions filed by him and arrayed as respondent 4 in the writ petition filed by the grantees. The Deputy Commissioner opined that the grant in the present case would be one covered by Rule 43-J and therefore non-alienation clause contained in 43-G of the Rule will not be applicable and on that basis he held that there was no bar against alienation so far as the grantee was concerned and so the sale deeds made in favour of the alienee were valid and set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved by the final order passed on 14-6-1994, the grantees filed Writ Petition Nos. 20296 of 1994, 22059 of 1994, 22401 of 1994 and 20281 of 1994. It may be clarified that Writ Petition Nos. 20281 of 1994 and 132 of 1994 are private parties, different from those involved in Writ Petition Nos. 32640 to 32642 of 1993.

(3.) As regards Writ Petition Nos. 22059 of 1994 and 22401 of 1994 the grantee is one Narasamma. She is alleged to have been in possession of the land under temporary grant and thereafter which had been granted permanently in favour of the grantee. The grantee in Writ Petition No. 22059 of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 2-2401 of 1994, it has been stated, belonged to Adidravida caste and land was granted to her husband in Sy. No. 95/3 vide order dated 3-11-1959 temporarily for five years and later on, on 19-10-1962, according to petitioner's case it was given permanently to the petitioner. The Saguvali Chit in favour of Narasamma who is the petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 22059 of 1994 and 22401 of 1994 had been issued on 12-6-1964. In the Saguvali Chit according to petitioner's case there has been a condition put to the effect that the grantee shall not alienate the land for a period of 15 years. But the grantee in these two petitions had made transfers in favour of respondent Manchegowda vide sale deed dated 10-7-1964 in Writ Petition No. 22059 of 1994 and in favour of Madegowda on 24-6-1964 and Madegowda in turn sold it to Manchegowda vide sale deed dated 1-3-1972 in Writ Petition No. 22401 of 1994. In Sec. 5 proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order allowing the application under Sec. 5 of Act 2 of 1979 and declared transfers to be null and void and ordered resumption of the land and restoration in favour of the grantee. In both the petitions, two appeals were filed by the transferees and the Deputy Commissioner allowed those appeals by a common order, taking the view as mentioned above that grantee was granted under Rule 43-J and so Rule 43-G will not apply nor was there a bar against alienation and upset the order of the Assistant Commissioner and from those orders the grantee filed these two writ petitions.