Siddayya vs The State of Karnataka

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—By consent, heard learned counsel for the parties for admission of the appeal.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ petition was against the order dated 19.09.2006 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur and the order dated 19.11.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur, holding that the sale transaction in respect of Sy. No. 707/2, in favour of the appellant is bad in law. In other words, the said transaction is hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 and Rules, 1979 (for short ''the act'').

There does not appear to be any dispute that one Mallappa, belonging to SC, was granted land by the Collector, Bijapur vide order dated 28.04.1947. After the death of Mallappa, his son Laxman sold the land vide registered sale deed dated 07.01.1992 in favour of appellants. After the demise of Laxman, his wife and son filed application before the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Act seeking reconvenience of the said land in their favour contending that the sale transaction between Laxman and the appellant was hit by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the Government Order dated 14.04.1964 bearing No. RD 72 LBM 63 to contend that the transfer between Laxman and the appellant stood regularised by virtue thereof. In other words, he submitted that by this order all restrictions, those were imposed when the land was granted, stood withdrawn.

We have perused the order dated 14.04.1964. It shows, in view of the representation made to the Government stating that the conditions imposed under the Bombay Land Revenue (Mysore Amendment) Rules, 1960, were onerous and that parties concerned were put to great hardship. It was suggested that the restrictions imposed under the resolution dated 26.08.1947, should be amended so as to permit grantees to alienate the lands granted to them without any restrictions and without obtaining the specific permission of any authority after a period of 15 years from the date of grant.

From bare reading of the order dated 14.04.1964, it is clear that it makes reference to the restrictions imposed under the resolution dated 26.08.1947. It does not state about the restrictions imposed, either by the order of grant or the Act, under which the order of grant was made. In the present case we are concerned with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section- 4 of the Act, which clearly provides that no person shall, after commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. It is not in dispute that the transaction between the appellant and Laxman took place after commencement of this Act. The transfer was effected some time in 1992, while the Act came into force in 1978. Since these facts are not in dispute, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge holding that transfer between Laxman and the appellant is hit by the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section- 4 of the Act. Admittedly neither Laxman, nor the appellant took prior permission of the Government contemplated therein.

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal accordingly fails and dismissed as such.