Shivappa vs Deputy Commissioner

M. Ramakrishna, J.—Subject matter of these two petitions is one and the same as also the contesting parties. Hence, I propose to dispose of them by the following common order.

The question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the upset price imposed on the grant of land having been waived by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, the grant could be construed as a free grant.

Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

Bheemla Bai, mother-in-law of the third respondent Valibai, was granted four acres of land in Sy. No. 37/8 situated in Malligere village, Channagiri Taluk, Shimoga District, by the Competent Authority under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules subject to certain conditions. That grant was made on 29-11-1959 and saguvali chit also issued subsequently. While doing so, the Competent Authority imposed certain sum of money as upset price and the said amount was admittedly waived by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 43 of the Land Grant Rules.

It is again an admitted fact that the granted land came to be sold in favour of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 22-2-1971 for valuable consideration, and ever since the date of sale, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

After the coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (the Act for short), Valibai, legal representative of Bheemlabai, original grantee, sought before the Assistant Commissioner, reliefs under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act on the ground that the alienation was made in favour of the petitioner in contravention of the Condition of the Act and that therefore she was entitled for restoration of the granted land.

The Assistant Commissioner having notified both parties, held an enquiry, considered the evidence on record - both oral and documentary - and passed an order as per Annexure-A declaring the sale as null and void u/s 4 of the Act and directing restoration of the land in favour of the said Valibai as, according to him, the granted land was sold contrary to the condition of the grant that the land shall not be alienated for a period of 10 years. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal u/s 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner who, after hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, dismissed the appeal affirming the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner, by his order made as per Annexure-B. Both these orders, Annexure-A and B, are challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 17486 of 1990. He has sought for quashing them for the reasons stated in the petition filed on 22-8-1990.

After the disposal of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner on 9-8-1990, an eviction notice as per Annexure-C in No. RI.K.CR.261/90-91 dated 28-8-1990 was issued to the petitioner by the Revenue Inspector, respondent-3 in W.P. No. 19253/1990 and thereupon on 31-8-1990 he went to the land, drew a mahazar as per Annexure-D in W.P. No. 19253/1990, evicted the petitioner from the land, resumed the land to the Government and then handed over the same to Valibai. As against the above eviction notice and the mahazar, Annexure-C and D respectively, W.P. No. 19253 of 1990 has been filed by the petitioner.

A specific contention was taken before the Deputy Commissioner that the grant was not a free grant, but on payment of upset price having regard to Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 43 prevailing as on the date of grant; that therefore, the period of non-alienation must be construed as 10 years instead of 15 years and that, construing the period so, the sale, having taken place after 10 years from the date of grant, could not be invalidated, and as such Sections 4 and 5 were not attracted to this case. The Deputy Commissioner considered the contention and rejected it. But, Sri Rudragowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the contention before me stating that the Deputy Commissioner has not assigned any reason for rejection of the said contention.

Having regard to the scheme of the grant of land, under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules which has been subjected to amendment from time to time right from the beginning, in favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes earlier called ''depressed class'', it is made clear that whenever a land is granted to a person belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on payment of upset price or reduced upset price exceeding rupees two hundred, discretion is given to the Deputy Commissioner to waive the upset price upto two hundred rupees and to recover the balance in easy annual instalments because of their poverty and backwardness. The Deputy Commissioner, in the instant case, I think, has waived the upset price because of incapability due to poverty of the grantee and it is not clear from the records whether the grantee has paid any amount in excess of the amount waived except that art amount of Rs. 20/- was recovered from her towards phodi fee as seen from the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-B in W.P. No. 17486 of 1990.

Thus, once an upset price imposed under the grant of land is waived by the Competent Authority and the grantee has not at all paid anything afterwards towards imposition of upset price, the grant cannot be said to be a grant on upset price. It is a free grant. I do not see any logic in the argument advanced by Sri Rudragowda in this behalf.

When the grant is free of cost, admittedly, the period of non-alienation, with reference to the Rule prevailing as on the date of grant in the instant case, is 15 years. When the period is reckoned from the date of grant to the date of sale, it comes within 15 years. To that extent, there is contravention of the condition of grant. Therefore, the sale has to be declared as null and void u/s 4 of the Act and u/s 5 the grantee is entitled for restoration of the granted land. In this case, the authorities below rightly did so. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the action taken by them.

In the result, these Writ Petition fail and are dismissed. No costs.

Sri Rudragowda disputes the competency of the Revenue Inspector issuing eviction notice under the Act as per Annexure-C in W.P. No. 19253/1990. I do not think that this is a fit case to go into that question. However, I leave that question open. However, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to permit the petitioner to harvest the crops, if any, on the land not later than 31 -12-1991.

Sri M. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance for respondents-State within two weeks.