SHANTAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioners have challenged the orders of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, holding that the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the land in question.

(2.) Following are the facts of the case: Lands in question consisting of 5 acres 20 guntas in Sy. No. 93/1 and a similar extent of land in Sy. No. 93/2 situated at Kalamane village, Shikaripur Taluk, Shimoga District, were originally granted to one Voddara Bhimanna and Hannappa respectively. Though the petitioners have described the transaction as 'grant of land for temporary cultivation', it would be inappropriate to say so, because it is only on lease basis these lands were brought under cultivation by Voddara Bhimanna and Hannappa when the lease was made on 25-2-1946 by Government.

(3.) The lessees executed the registered sale deeds on 21-2-1952 and 22-2-1952 in respect of the lands lessed out to them, in favour of Amrutraj and Rangaraj. It must be emphasised that on 21-2-1952 and 22-2-1952, the status of the vendors was that of lessees and not owners. At this stage it may be mentioned that on 8-7-1953, leased lands came to be converted into granted lands and grant certificates were issued on 26-8-1953. It is interesting to note that the grant certificates were issued to the original lessees, namely, Voddara Bhimanna and Hannappa and not to Amrutraj and Rangaraj. Obviously the authorities were not informed that the lessees had already sold the lands in question to Am- ruthraj and Rangaraj. Thereafter on 24-3-1966, both the vendors Amruthraj and Rangaraj executed registered sale deeds of the lands in question to the petitioners herein. Respondent-3 who is stated to be the legal heir of the original grantees made a claim for resumption of lands under Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the 'Act' for short). After holding an enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 26-10-1984 under Annexure-C, holding that the vendors of the petitioners are not the lawful owners of the lands in question since they have no title and that there was no transferable interest at the tune of sale and further rejected the plea of adverse possession and directed the resumption of lands and restoration of the same to the legal heirs of the original grantees. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga Dis trict, who confirmed the same and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court. The point for consideration is, whether the petitioners acquired a valid title under the sale deed dated 24-3-1966 as second purchasers.