HALAGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main grievance of the petitioners is that the land in question is not a granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners are now asserting before this Court that the said land was not granted to Lingaiah who is the father of respondent No. 4 and further that he is not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. If this Court were to reach the conclusion that there was a grant in favour of Lingaiah and that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, the petitioners will not be entitled to the relief sought in these writ petitions.

(2.) Therefore, the only point which arises for consideration is whether or not the father of the 4th respondent belonged to Scheduled Caste and whether or not he was granted the land in question so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(l)(b) of the Act. The second question is whether there is any violation of the period of alienation, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the land referred to is granted land.

(3.) It was very strongly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that inspite of persistent efforts made by the petitioners, neither the Tahsildar nor the Assistant Commissioner of Tiptur Sub-division, could furnish a copy of the Saguvali Chit purported to have been issued on 18-1-1960 in respect of Serial No. 89 of Byrapura village. In the absence of such a vital document the order passed both by the Assistant Commissioner and by the Deputy Commissioner holding that the land was granted on 18-1-1960 to the father of the 4th respondent and that he belonged to Scheduled Caste, has no basis.