MAHADEVAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-9-1997 passed by the deputy Commissioner, Shimoga District, Shi-moga, in Case No. SC. ST 34 of 1992-93 dismissing the petitioners' appeal and confirming the order dated 30-10-1992 passed by the assistant Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, Shimoga, in Case No. PTCL. CR. 7 of 1991-92 under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979), holding that the transfer made by the grantee in favour of the petitioners vide the sale deed dated 4-5-1964 to be null and void and directing its resumption after evicting the petitioners and the restoration of its possession to the grantee.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are: that the land in question is a subject-matter of the case, has been granted as per the petition allegation in favour of one Gaddalappa S/o Basappa, the father of respondents 4 to 6 on 22-5-1956 with the condition that the granted land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years. That on 4-5-1964 the land in question was sold by respondents 4 to 6 in favour of the present petitioners for a valuable consideration of Rs. 3,000/- under a registered sale deed. After the coming into force of Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979 respondents 4 to 6 moved the Assistant commissioner, Shimoga Sub-Division, Shimoga for restoration of the granted land. The assistant Commissioner vide the order dated 30-3-1992 as mentioned earlier, held that the transaction of sale made in favour of the petitioners was in breach of the terms of the grant and had been in violation of the condition of the grant which prohibited alienation of the granted land for a period of fifteen years. The petitioners have filed the appeal before the Deputy commissioner, Shimoga District, Shimoga. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties by his order dated 18-9-1997 held that the grantee belongs to Adi Karnataka which is one of the scheduled Castes. It further found that even under the rules relating to the grant the transaction of sale was void as per Section 43-G as operating in 1955-56, where it is restricted for a period of fifteen years because the sale was made within the prohibitory period i. e. , within eight years from the date of the grant. As regards the plea of adverse possession the Appellate Court observed that the present petitioners were not entitled to claim adverse possession or acquisition of title by adverse possession and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the purchasers have come up before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india.

(3.) I have heard Sri Mahesh R. Uppin, holding brief for Sri B. Veerab-hadrappa, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Jayaram, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri s. V. Prakash, learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 6.