N D RANGAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-3-1998 (An-nexure-B to the writ petition) whereby the Deputy Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Assistant commissioner, Davangere Sub-Division, Davangere. The petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 10-3-1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as order dated 26-7-1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that, land bearing Sy. No. 24 (new No. 75) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas situated at Sulthanipura, Maikonda Hobli, Davangere Taluk and District, was granted in favour of respondent 3 on 8-6-1954. There was a condition in the grant itself prohibiting the alienation of the granted land for ten years' period. The respondent 3, according to the petitioner, sold the land to the present petitioner under registered sale-deed dated 24-3-1970 and the petitioner claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land since the date of sale or alienation thereof in his favour by the respondent 3. The proceedings under Section 5 were initiated on the report of the Tahsildar in the year 1994 under Section 5 of the Karnataka scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. Show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the petitioner who filed his objections. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 26-7-1997 declared the alienation made by the grantee of the granted land in favour of the petitioner to be hit by Section 4 and to be null and void. The petitioner who is the purchaser preferred an appeal under Section 5-A namely S. C. PTL. 5 of 1997-98. The Deputy commissioner-respondent 1 by his order dated 10-3-1998 dismissed the petitioner's i. e. , purchaser's appeal. The petitioner having felt aggrieved from the order of the Assistant Commissioner as well as Deputy Commissioner has come up before this Court by petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. L. Prenia Kumar and the learned government Counsel Sri V. Jayaram for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri P. Dananjaya, learned counsel for respondent 3.