MALLAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsels for both parties.

(2.) THE bone of contention between the parties is the land measuring 2 acres in Sy. No. 7 in Hadigere Village, Tarikere Taluk of Chickmagalur district. It was granted under darkhast to H. M. Basappa on 4-9-1962 by the Government with a condition imposed on the grant that the granted land shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years. In breach of the said condition the land was purchased on 29-4-1966 by the father of petitioners, named Marappa. Thereafter, the purchaser and the grantee died. On the death of grantee, his son respondent No. 4 made an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 of the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act for the resumption of the lands asserting that the said land was alienated to said Marappa by his (respondent 4's) late father in breach of said non-alienation condition. On enquiry, the order Annexure-B dated 6-5-1987 was passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding the said sale null and void and directing petitioner's eviction therefrom for the purpose of its restoration to respondent 4. An appeal against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner has been dismissed by the deputy Commissioner under his order dated 18-8-1997. Both the said orders at Annexures-B and C are now challenged by the petitioners.

(3.) EARLIER, by an order dated 26-3-1992 of the learned Single Judge the petition was dismissed. The petitioner's appeal in W. A. No. 1588 of 1992 against the said order also came to be dismissed by order dated 1-9-1992. Aggrieved by the said orders of this Court the legal representatives of the purchaser deceased Marappa approached Supreme court in Civil Appeal No. 4616 of 1997. The said appeal was disposed of by Supreme Court by its order dated 18th March, 1994 setting aside the orders dated 1-9-1992 and 26-3-1992 of this Court and remitting matter with a direction to this Court to decide and dispose of the same in the light of the decision of Supreme Court in K. T. Hutchegowda v Deputy commissioner.