AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Writ Petitioners are six in number. Petitioners 1 and 2 constitute one set as legal heir of one Smt. Shivamma who it is said had purchased an extent of one acre of land in Sy. No. 16 of Heggadigere Village, Nuggehalli Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, from one Nanjabhovi as per sale deed dated 6.8.1975 executed by said Nanjabhovi.
Likewise, third Petitioner claims to be son of one Gangamma who it is claimed had purchased an extent of two acres of land in the very survey number as per sale transaction dated 4.11.1971 executed by the very Nanjabhovi.
Petitioners 4 and 5 constitute one set of Petitioners being sons of one Rangegowda who it is claimed, had purchased an extent of one acre, in the very survey number on the same day from very Nanjabhovi.
Sixth Petitioner had himself purchased one acre of land on the same day from the very Nanjabhovi and in the very Nanjabhovi.
The subject land constitutes part of an extent of 8 acres of land which had been leased in favour of said Nanjabhovi in terms of a lease granted in or around the year 1960 for a period of five years therefrom.
It appears said Nanjabhovi had continued to remain in possession, occupation and cultivation of the subject land beyond the lease period also and in recognition of the same, the revenue authorities acting on behalf of the State Government had granted the extent of 8 acres in favour of said Nanjabhovi in terms of a grant order dated 10.7.1975 [copy at Annexure-F to the writ petition] and on collecting the upset price of sum of Rs. 90/- from him said to have been paid in two installments, a sum of Rs. 30/- paid on 11.11.1968 and Rs. 60/- paid on 28.6.1971.
All was well for the Petitioners till the year 1998 or 1999 when the fourth Respondent - son of the grantee moved the Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, by filing an application u/s 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands] Act, 1978, seeking for invalidation of the sale transactions and restore the land to him on the premise that land had been granted in favour of the person belonging to scheduled caste community and had been sold in violation of the terms of the grant.
The Assistant Commissioner, on holding an enquiry, found the transactions were not affected as the grantee had paid upset price of Rs. 90/- and therefore having acquired good title to the subject land, he was free to alienate any part of the land in any manner he chose to and therefore dismissed the application.
The view taken by the Assistant Commissioner was that in terms of the grant order dated 10.7.1975, the grantee had become absolute owner free from conditions etc.,.
Aggrieved fourth Respondent preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner u/s 5A of the Act.
The Deputy Commissioner found merit in the appeal, in as much as, he found that the provisions of Rule-43J of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, as it existed at the relevant point of time, is attracted to the subject grant and transactions as the land had been initially leased in favour of Nanjabhovi temporarily, i.e., for a period of five years and the grant being in pursuance of the provisions of Rule-43J of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, 1888, it is only subject to the conditions imposed, both in the grant order as well as conditions statutorily imposed on such grants.
It is aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition.
13 Appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submission of Sri. Kempegowda, learned Counsel is that the grant being one after collecting the upset price, in which event, the conditions do not operate, there was no way of the Deputy Commissioner reversing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner who had rightly rejected the application u/s 5 of the Act.
A perusal of the grant certificate produced as Annexure-F to the writ petition indicates that the grant was subject to the condition that it should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years.
The transactions being dated 6.8.1975 while clearly is in violation of this condition, the earlier transactions of the year 1971 are by a person who had no right at all to sell the land and while the grantee was holding over and in occupation of the subject land after the expiry of initial lease period of five years. The lease document had also imposed a condition that the lessee should never part with possession or alienate or do any such transaction in respect of the subject land. Just because the lessee was holding over, it does not mean the lessee acquires better rights than what was acquired under the original lease deed and once the lease period expired if at all such rights can be lesser or inferior than to what rights the lessee had under the lease deed.
In this view of the matter, the transactions of the year 1971 being in violation of the lease condition and the sale of the year 1975 being in violation of the terms of the grant of the year 1975 and the grantee being a person belonging to scheduled caste community, the provisions of Section 4 of the Act are inevitably attracted and if the Deputy Commissioner in recognition of this legal position, had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, allowed the appeal, anulled the sale transactions and directed restoration of the land in favour of the fourth Respondent, such an order is a very valid and proper order in law.
There is no need nor justification for interference in such matters in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.