R. Nagaraja vs Chikka Venkatamma

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—This petition is filed by the first respondent in R.S.A. No. 1244/2004 for review of the order dated 23.09.2010 allowing the appeal. The review petitioner instituted O.S. No. 452/1992 for specific performance of an agreement of sale of a certain immovable property, being agricultural lands, of which, occupancy right was conferred on the defendants. That suit was opposed by filing written statement inter alia contending that the claim for specific performance is unavailable since the occupancy rights conferred on the defendants was laced with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years and that the alleged agreement of sale was entered into within the non-alienation period, amongst other grounds.

The trial Court dismissed the suit on accepting the said contention, whereafter wards, the plaintiff preferred R.A. No. 15/1999, whence the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court set aside and the suit decreed. That judgment and decree was called in question in RSA No. 1244/2004 by respondents 1 to 3-defendants, whence the appeal was allowed following the decision of this Court in K. Abdul Hameed and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, observing that when there is a statutory prohibition for the sale within the period of non-alienation, it cannot be circumvented and land cannot be parted for valuable consideration, by device of ''agreement of sale.

Learned Counsel for the review petitioner is correct in his submission that a Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Sushila A. Dass Vs. Mrs. Mary Boiger, following the earlier decisions of this Court observed that: it is for the authorities conferred with the powers under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, to examine the legality of the transactions and not for the Civil Court and that there is no bar for the Civil Court to grant the specific performance of contract of sale of agricultural land notwithstanding the provisions of Section 80(b) of the said Act. This aspect of the matter, when not considered by the learned Judge while allowing R.S.A. No. 1244/2004, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out case for review of the judgment and decree.

In the result, this review petition is allowed for the aforesaid reason and not on the premise that the review petitioner was not extended an opportunity of hearing before the learned Judge. The judgment and decree dated 23.09.2010 in RSA No. 1244/2004 is set aside and RSA No. 1244/2004 is restored to file.

List for hearing after 05.08.2013.