Thuluvanur Venkataramana vs Assistant Commissioner

S.B. Majmudar, C.J.—The Appellant is aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge disposing of his Writ Petition on the ground that the impugned order of Assistant Commissioner as per ANNEXURE-C is appealable u/s 5A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. No doubt it is true that the learned Judge, has referred to Section 5A, as amended by amending Act No. 3/1984, which in substance is Karnataka Act No. 3 of 1984. But that provision would certainly not apply to such a case. In the present case the Appellant who was original grantee had moved the Assistant Commissioner for declaring the Sale Deed entered into by him in favour of Respondent No. 2 to be null and void, being violative of provisions of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. However, the order of the learned Judge can be sustained on account of the further fact that Section 5A itself underwent an amendment by Karnataka Act No. 8/1992. By that amendment the Legislature amended Section 5 and inserted Sub-section (1A), which reads as under: -

"After an enquiry referred to in Sub-section (1) the Assistant Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that transfer of any granted land is not null and void pass an order accordingly."

Then follows the amendment to Section 5A and it reads as under:-

"Any person aggrieved by an order passed after the commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (Amendment) Act, 1992, by the Assistant Commissioner under Sub-section (1A) of Section 5, may prefer an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction within a period of three months from the date on which the order was communicated to him."

It therefore becomes obvious that any order passed u/s 5(1A) by the Assistant Commissioner after enquiry holding that the transfer of the granted land is not null and void, is now appealable u/s 5A(1A) to the Deputy Commissioner. Whatever, therefore, was the former position, now after the Amending Act No. 8/1992 Legislature has clearly provided this right of appeal against such orders like ANNEXURE-C which is one of that type. Therefore, it is clearly appealable to the Deputy Commissioner under the aforesaid provision. Consequently, no fault can be found with the Decision of the learned Single Judge relegating the Appellant to a remedy by way of appeal against the order ANNEXURE-C before the Deputy Commissioner.

Appeal is therefore dismissed.