GOWRIMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point for consideration is whether the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner suffer from any legal infirmity.

(2.) The facts speak for themselves. The records show that the land in question was leased out for a period of five years from 1960-61 ending on 1964-65 on the expiry of the month of June for a specific period of five years for the purpose of temporary cultivation of land. Saguvali Chit was issued on 31-12-1959 and the land was sold on 8-7-1965. Obviously the petitioner not being a purchases from the grantee but only being a purchaser from the lessee cannot have a valid title to the land. The well known principle which is attracted to the facts of the case is that the purchaser cannot derive a better title than what the seller has. The land is a subject matter of lease and not a subject matter of grant. The material on record shows that even during the subsistence ot the lease, alienation of leased land was totally prohibited. Inspite of such a prohibition and inspite of the fact that it was only leased land and not granted land, the petitioner hazarded purchase of land from the lessee and the lessee also committed the wrong of selling away the land which was leased for cultivation. What the petitioner is now seeking is a premium on abuse of the lease-hold right granted by the Government to the lessee and also for a recognition of the sale which has absolutely no legal sanctity. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is neither legally nor morally justified in staking his claim to the land. The sale is in utter violation of the conditions of lease. if the lessee on completion of the period of lease had made an application under Rule 43-J of the Rules and sought for grant of the leased land and if the competent authorities had allowed the application and thereby converted the leased land into granted land, he position would have been somewhat different but even then the imposition of restriction on alienation of the land could not have been ruled out. In any case the material before the Court does not permit the recognition of the sale transaction of the lessee in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) In the light of the above discussion, petition is dismissed and the impugned orders are sustained. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.