JAYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2014 passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.170/27 measuring 1 acre of Alur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hiriyur Taluk was granted in favour of Smt. Rangamma on 4.7.1961. The said Rangamma sold the said land in favour of Basanna s/o Bheemaiah. The said Basanna sold the same in favour of Marudappa, husband of the petitioner herein by registered sale deed dated 28.7.1967. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short the Act) came into force on 1.1.1979. The original grantee Smt.Rangamma filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act on 14.6.2007 for restoration of the land before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 30.3.2010 allowed the said application and restored the land in favour of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the petitioners husband before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.7.2014 dismissed the application and has confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that originally the land was granted in favour of Rangamma by the competent authority on 4.4.1961. The said Rangamma sold the said land in favour of the Basanna s/o Bheemaiah. The Basanna in turn sold the same in favour of Marudappa, husband of the petitioner herein by registered sale deed dated 28.7.1967. The said Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979. Thereafter, the original grantee Smt.Rangamma filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act on 14.6.2007 for restoration of the land i.e., 27 years after the Act came into force. There is delay in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. In support of his case, he has relied upon the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v- State of Karnataka and Another reported in 2018 (1) Kar. LR 5 (SC). Therefore, he sought for allowing the petition.