Smt. Kempamma @ Kulamma and Others vs The Deputy Commissioner, The Assistant Commissioner and Siddaiaha

A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The 3rd respondent had made an application before the 2nd respondent under Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979 (for short ''the Act'') for declaring a sale deed dated 12.06.1968 alienating 2 acres of granted land in old Sy. No. 66, new Sy. No. 123 of Lokasara Village, Mandya Taluk as null and void and for restoration of the land in his favour. The 2nd respondent allowed the application, declared transfer of the said land as null and void, ordered for resumption of the property free from encumbrances in favour of the State of Karnataka and then for restoration of the same to the applicant. An appeal filed by the predecessor of the petitioners-Bettegowda, before the 1st respondent having been dismissed, Bettegowda @ Chikka haidegowda filed W.P. No. 17293/1994. Finding merit in the contention that the authorities have not recorded the finding as to whether grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste or not, writ petition was allowed on 22.11.1996 and the impugned orders were quashed and the case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to record required findings as held in the case of Pedda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, and decide the matter in accordance with law. The 2nd respondent having issued notice to the parties and considering the written arguments submitted by both the parties, passed an order dated 21.03.2006, as at Annexure-B, whereby, transfer of the subject land vide sale deed dated 12.6.1968 was declared as null and void, the land was directed to be resumed free from encumbrances in favour of the State Government and thereafter, to restore the same in favour of the applicant i.e., 3rd respondent herein. An appeal filed before the 1st respondent under S.5-A of the Act having been found to be devoid of merit was dismissed on 30.06.2009, vide at Annexure-A. This writ petition is directed against the said orders.

Sri Papegowda, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to act in terms of the order dated 22.11.1996 passed in W.P. No. 17293/1994 and hence, the impugned orders being arbitrary and illegal, warrant interference.

Sri. M.G. Anjanamurthy, learned HGGP, on the other hand contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have considered the case and have recorded the required findings as held in the case of Pedda Reddy (supra) and the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the orders as at Annexures-A and B being neither perverse nor illegal, no interference in the matter is warranted.

Respondent No. 3 though served has remained unrepresented.

Perused the record of the case made available by the learned HCGP.

While allowing W.P. No. 17293/1994 on 22.11.1996, respondent No. 2 was directed to issue notice to the parties, conduct enquiry afresh, hear of the parties and record findings, as held in the case of Pedda Reddy (supra).

The 2nd respondent after issuing notices to the parties and having conducted the enquiry and considering the written arguments filed by the parties has passed the order dated 21.03.2006 as at Annexure-B.

In the case of Pedda Reddy (supra), it was held that the Assistant Commissioner cannot declare the sale of granted land under the provisions of the Act as void, unless he records the following findings:

i) that the grant was made in favour of a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;

ii) that the grant was either on an upset price or a free grant or for a price less than the upset price; and

iii) that the alienation had taken place within the period of prohibition prescribed under the Rules.

The order passed by the 2nd respondent as at Annexure-B affirmed by the 1st respondent as at Annexure-A would show that the required findings on the aforesaid aspects have been recorded after proving the opportunity of hearing to the parties. There is a concurrent finding on facts and the same has not been shown to be either perverse or illegal. The burden of proof is on the petitioners and they have failed to discharge the same. Since the petitioners'' predecessor purchased the granted land without obtaining the prior permission of the Government, the provisions of the Act having been attracted, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are justified in passing the impugned orders as at Annexures-A and B. The impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor illegal. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. However the petitioners are entitled to harvest the standing crop, if any.