LAWS(KAR)-1999-6-11

G S SHANTHAPPA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE

Decided On June 17, 1999
G.S.SHANTHAPPA Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these petitions each petitioner has challenged Orders at Annexures B and C to these Writ Petitions, namely Orders dated 5-5-1997, passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in SC/st (Appeal) 10/96-97 and in case No. SC/st (Appeal) No. 9/96-97.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that by order dated 16-2-1967, the land bearing Block No. 35 measuring 1 acre and block No. 36 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of Sy. No. 1 of Jarakabande Kaval, Bangalore, were granted in favour of the original respts. 3 and 4 for reduced upset price when, reduced upset price, I mean to say that, upset price was fixed at Rs. 500/- per acre, but in relaxation given under Rule 42, as the grantees belonged to Bhovi Community being classified as the Scheduled Caste, a sum of Rs. 200/- out of Rs. 500/- was waived and grant was made at the rate of Rs. 300/- per acre. It means original upset price was determined to be Rs. 500/- but relaxation and reduction was given in favour of the grantees being of Scheduled Caste and only Rs. 300/- were taken towards that price and, so it is reduced upset price or relaxed upset price. According to the petitioner in the grant certificate or the Saguvali chit, no condition was mentioned regarding prohibition against alienation of granted land for a specified period, I mean to say that, there was no condition prohibiting the alienation of granted land mentioned in the grant certificate or saguvali chit. The grantees by sale deeds dated 9th July, 1976 alienated by sale, the said lands in favour of the petitioner and, according to petitioner, petitioner was put in actual possession of the land, no doubt petitioner's case is that, he thereafter carried on developments etc.

(3.) THE applications under Sections 4 and 5 of Karnataka Act No. 2/79 were made by respts. 3 and 4 on record of these writ petitions and they prayed before the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the sales, as according to the respondents, the sales were got done by fraud. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the said applications by order dated 4-8-1980. The said order having been challenged in this Court by a writ petition, then this Court by order dated 18-11-1982, remanded the matter to the Asst. Commissioner after setting aside the said order for redetermination. The Assistant Commissioner, again passed an order on 22-7-1991 rejecting the respondents applications under Sections 4 and 5 of Karnataka Act 2 of 1979.