AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.G. Ramesh, J.—This Writ Petition by the purchaser''s legal heir is directed against: the order dt. 16.9.2004 (Annexure-C) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga district dismissing her Appeal filed u/s 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled. Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain lands) Act 1978 (the Act for short) in case No. SC. ST. 29/2000-01 and also the order dt. 22.9.2000 (Annexure-B) passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Shimoga Sub-division u/s 5 of the Act directing restitution of the land measuring 2 acres 38 guntas to respondent No. 3 and his mother (now deceased) who are the legal heirs of the original grantee - Hanumanthappa.
I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the aforesaid orders at Annexures-B and C.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner''s husband purchased the land in question measuring 2 acres 38 guntas from the original grantee on 26.4.1983 i.e. subsequent to coming into force of the Act The Act came into force on 1.1.1979.
The only contention urged by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the original grantee Hanumanthappa did not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes and therefore the Act is not applicable to the land in question.
The Asst. Commissioner has considered the aforesaid contention and has held that the original grantee belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the applicants west the legal heirs of the original grantee on the basis of the caste certificate as well as the voters'' list produced by the applicant who is respondent No. 3 herein. Both the authorities below have found that the land in question was granted to Hanumanthappa as per the grant Certificate dated 17.4.1968 with a non-alienation condition of 15 years, in any view of the matter, it cannot be disputed, on the material on record, that the land is a ''granted land'' as defined under the Act Admittedly it was sold subsequent to coming into force of the Act without the previous permission of the Government as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Sec. 4 of the Act, Hence, the transfer in favour of the petitioner''s husband is void as per Sec. 4(1) of the Act.
On the aforesaid facts, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned orders at Annexures-B and C to warrant interference. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.