GANGAMALAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner at Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively.

(2.) The undisputed facts disclosed in the averments of the writ petition and the impugned orders are that Thimmanna, the 4th respondent was granted 1 acre 23 guntas of land in Survey No. 13/21 situate in Hatikatte Village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District, by an order made by the Tahsildar, Bhadravathi dated 30th August 1975 in proceedings No. DAR. 179/72-73 The Saguvali chit also came to be issued as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 1-2-1975 by a Registered Sale deed dated 16-2-1976 the petitioner purchased the said land for valuable consideration. After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands), Act, 1978, (the Act for short), the 4th respondent has moved the third respondent Assistant Commissioner seeking for the benefit of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner, having held an enquiry, passed an order on 27-10-1983 holding that the transfer of land by 4th respondent in favour of the petitioner was in contravention of the condition of the grant and therefore the said transaction was null and void, and directing restoration of the land to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner who dismissed the appeal of firming the view expressed by the Assistant Commissioner and rejecting the other contentions raised by the appellant. Therefore the petitioner approached this Court seeking for relief. Sri Rudragowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who took me through the impugned orders, urged two contentions in support of the petition. 1. The Assistant Commissioner, the 3rd respondent was in error in construing the transaction of the sale as void, in-as much as the grant of land in favour of 4th respondent was on payment of upset price and therefore, the non-alienation clause could not apply, in the instant case. 2. The fourth respondent is not entitled for the relief under the Act, as he is not a scheduled caste person.

(3.) The Assistant Commissioner has committed in directing the Tahsildar to take possession of the land in question and handover the same to the 4th respon dent the applicant. Sri Rudragouda, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon rule 43 (g) of the Land Grant Rules submitted that the grant of land is subject to payment of upset price. The imposition of prohibition from alienation cannot be attached.