MUNI AKKAYYAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the short point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of quashing the impugned order of rcspondent-2 dated 14-10-1987 ordering eviction of the petitioners. .

(2.) the facts which arc not in dispute are that on 18-11-1970 the lands, in question were alienated by the original holder of lands, the lands being attached to thoti service fnam of beerasandra village, dcvanahally talak. The husband of the 1st petitioner who was also the father of the 2nd petitioner was the purchaser. On an application made by the original holder of lands, an order of regrant was passed on 12-11-1970 under sectron-5 of the karnalaka, Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 ('the act' for short). The sale of the lands is subsequent to the regrant. But the salient fea ture in the regrant order is that permission was granted to alienate the lands in the regrant order itself and this; enabled and empowered the original holder of lands to execute sale deed in favour of the purchaser. Though the principle that is laid down in the case of Lakshmana Gowda v State, 1981(1) kar.l.j. page-1, is that the benefit of regrant flows to the alienee if the alienation has taken place after 1963 and before the order of regrant, in the instant case the Provisions of law under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the act come to the aid of the petitioners.

(3.) sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the act reads thus:"the occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, regranted under sub Section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by partition among members of hindu joint family without the previous sanction of the deputy commissioner and such sanction shall be granted only on payment of an amount, equal to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land!"