Lingappa Achary vs The State of Karnataka and Others

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [for short ''the Act''] are so drastic, so pervasive, so assertive, so empathic, so impacting that even a bona fide purchaser of a land which had been granted in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled tribe community in a court auction sale is also caught in the crossfire of a transaction which is covered by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

In the present case, writ Petitioner is a person who had so purchased certain land which had been originally granted in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community and it was subject matter of a court auction sale. Petitioner having paid the amount and sale transaction also having concluded with the confirmation of sale by execution of sale deed through court order itself, but notwithstanding these developments, the person claiming under the original grantee of subject land having Petitioned the Assistant Commissioner to get over the sale transaction etc., and the Assistant Commissioner exercising his power u/s 5 of the Act after having held an enquiry and after noticing the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, particularly Sub-section [3] of Section 4 of the Act, reading as under:

Prohibition of transfer of granted lands. -

(1) ....

(2) ....

(3) The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other authority.

and having held that even a transaction of this nature is voided because of want of prior permission before the transaction and having directed resumption of the land to the State and to be restituted in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee and effort on the part of the Petitioner to get out of this order before the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal u/s 5A of the Act also having failed, writ Petitioner is before this Court complaining of the grave injustice that has befallen him due to the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

While, from a lay person''s point of view and even from the angle of a perception of right or wrong as it prevails in our society, the Petitioner being a bona fide purchaser, having paid the price as was quoted in the court auction sale if is to be deprived of both the land and the money no wonder it appears to be a very unfair development.

It is because of this situation, Sri. Krishnamoorthy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been very vehemently urging that the least that could have been done was to direct the refund of the money which the Petitioner had paid pursuant to the court auction sale.

Though such a course of action appears to be quite reasonable and equitable, there being no enabling provision to effectuate such a proposition as per the provisions of the Act and as pointed out by Sri. Omkumar, learned Additional Government Advocate that the statutory provision being to the contrary as per Section 4[3] of the Act as quoted above, there is no scope for examining such possibilities.

Insofar as the Orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner are concerned, they being in consonance with the provisions of the Act and even a court auction sale having been roped in for the purpose of Section 4 of the Act, no occasion to interfere with the orders.

Writ petition is dismissed.