R. Keshavamurthy vs The State of Karnataka

B.S. Patil, J.—This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru, confirmed in appeal by order dated 23.07.2013 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District.

Facts as asserted by the petitioners would reveal that 3 acres of land comprised in Old Sy. No. 21, New Sy. Nos. 145/1 & 145/2 situated at Harapanahalli village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, was granted in favour of one Nanja @ Thoti Nanja, who is said to be the grandfather of the 4th respondent - Rajappa. 4th respondent and his family members sold an extent of 1 acre 32 guntas of the said land in favour of one Jaya P.Reddy. The said Jaya P.Reddy sold an extent of 34 guntas including 13 guntas of kharab on 13.10.2003 in favour of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner in turn sold the said land in favour of the 2nd petitioner on 19.08.2004.

The 4th respondent filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land to the State and to restore the same in his favour under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, the Act''). The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the application and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land. This has been confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. This is how petitioners are before this Court challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the parties.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No. 36947/2013 disposed of on 14.11.2014, this Court has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and has remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It is, therefore, contended that as the connected writ petition has been allowed in respect of another purchaser of another extent of land, this writ petition also deserves to be allowed and the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration along with the matter which has already been remanded.

Learned Additional Government Advocate rightly submits that question raised in the connected writ petition was with regard to the validity of the sale which was effected prior to the coming into force of the Act, particularly in the background of the non-existence of any rule at the time of grant authorizing imposition of condition of non-alienation.

In the aforesaid background, I have perused the order passed in W.P. No. 36947/2013 and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the facts of this case and the law applicable.

The question raised in the connected writ petition has nothing to do with the controversy raised in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the land is sold by the petitioners herein after the Act came into force and in the year 1995. The first sale has been made on 01.12.1995, whereas the subsequent sales are made on 13.10.2003 and 19.08.2004. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Mariyappa Vs. Dr. N. Thimmarayappa and Others, has no application to the facts of the present case.

The express provision contained under Section 4(2) of the Act has application to the present case. After the Act came into force, no granted land could be sold without obtaining prior permission of the State Government. In the instant case, the land has been sold in the year 1995. The Act came into force with effect from 01.01.1979. Therefore, in view of Section 4(2) of the Act, the sale made in the year 1995 is void as it is made without obtaining prior permission of the Government. Therefore, there is no need to remand this matter for fresh consideration.

Hence, this writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.