Q_ AN?-§:.:. V
m THE HIGH Comm' 0? K.amIA1:AKA, x
DATED arms Tm 2nd DAY OF JUNE?{jj2e)e9%%¢ T L
BEFORE
THE HOITBLE MR. Jt3sT;cE iiozmni mrzixftjsxf "
WRET PETITIOIQ' No. OF"2,()0!!"V-1(S (; §'r)
BETWEEN: V' "
S}~IRILB KUMAR' -' g
8/0 LATE BYRAQPA
AGED 60 .
occ; AGR}:CU¥;T€';7«R'I2$°? ~ «
we H:'sLELAK;KOE:£; VILLAGE *
'PALUI«;TAI:.za:gV'«V.V% ._
1:>:S'1'R1,_"§QUASH THE? 0129212 DATED
3.2.2004 PASSED BY R5 VIBE ANNEXURE»-» A AND B
Ems? cm*EL&'.%
' 'FHIS'P E'F_I'FION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
x VA'T"-.¥"'V"§'717IS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
F"OLI;OWI£\}3.':
ORDER
A “=«_.Th& land measuring 3 acrss in Sy.N9.2/P of
Sjaddakundur village in Lakiiolfi hobli, Tarikere iaiuk,
was granted to the pfititiflflfil’ on 30.3.73 under $13
ruies and was faliowed by a Saguvaii Chit dated
M
29,1. 1973 laced with a Condition of non
period of 15 years, from out Qf iX;I:’1i£:h 1:”a;€:’I_’€:$ -[vr:9;:~’3
conveyed in favcux’ of NaChim’iJ}:ti2_VA’ and _-the
area in favour of K V€€raV1)p;§1V1_S/(5
under separate daed-VS~.__<§f Sgiifié d%§Lté"25:.3. 1992.
That Veerappan of land in
faveuz’ qf Seed dated
26.4. 19955 became the owner
of thereafteiwards, by
sale de,;é:i:&aied.VVV_.conveyed the iaud in favour
cf respondéiztv the grurchaser cf 3 acres of
. V. to? petitic3ner’s brother. The 4&1
–f€spQT11~£§<j:::;t égarxveyed two acres each ts r<::sp0ndents~1
{<3 u;::5d%eir separate saie deeds of aver: date
:3T.9.é0o;0§
2. The petitioner izwaked the jurisdictian 8f the
Asst. Commissioner under The Karnataka Scheduied
Caste and Schefiuled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Q!’
N
Certain Lands) Act 1978, for short: the Act, to declare
as mill and ‘amid the sale transactions and res’§<;3reetfhe
iand to himself which when registereci as __S"1'v' H
()1 notice was served on the respo£1de:1t~':Em:é§~::1ie:: Asst'; 2
Commissioner by Order dated '23, 1 1AiiI14é};'§1:fe'~:.;§,A
recorded a fmding of feet (3) 1e,;1d
granted for an upset pfiee'-{}3}–.._vthat' fiefitioner
belongs to 'Mada Vi3eListe'é–_L in the list of
Sche{}_.ii1ed'' * .;:'.';10tixf"ieétiVion of the year 1976
and net er: –~.ef~fi'1e yam': and therefore fefl
outside defniitiefi of the term 'granted land'
' '~ emcér me "figzt a_'1é:<'i"':eic:cordiI;g1§,I rejected the petition.
'A by the said order, the petitioner
'~w__ '-»prefeI're{i an appeai under Secfa 01' the Act to the
T A' -_Bvep_{::ty Commissioner which when regstered as
L'%ee~ee:. _§fo.M3 we 24/02-03, by order dated 3.2.2004
V' Anrzexurefi confirmed the fmding of the Asst
M
Cemmissioner and dismissed the appeai. }*Ience_.»,.__this
petitirm.
4. Leamérd counsel for the: petitio21e:5:_:”
the following two contentions:
(1) ‘mat Rule 9 of the
Grant Rules, 1969 ijaxpbses aL”r@strj¢tioi’1 “to’
alienate {he land for of.’ 1«5v,_A}’$?§irs
frem the dai;?,f§”g– of-‘_ .té1i;ing’«.Vpossession
xi grant was for
p1’i(V;Ve: ” than upset price or a
thfzfefore, the finding 9f the
3 ._§’ 2i:1th0riti:5sVV§§§e1Q§:v that the land was granted
aTi1~,_}1pset price not failizlg within the
V’ <j.:f the Act is mega};
V . ?{2§:’ that ‘Mada caste’ though irzciuded
1:1 .1;h£§1i3t as Scheduled Tflbe in the year
1976, was deemed ta) be a Scheciuled Tribe
H raven on the date of the want, supported by
the decisizm of a. Division Bench of this
court in S. NACHIMUTI-III GOUNDER as
mamas vs. rm. HAGARAJIJ 85 mrmns
reparted in. ILR 1999 Ka.r.2506. Leaxfled
IA
be remitted to the Deputy Commissioner fyiefer
consideration afresh.
6. Thegrant in question, admittedly,’ K
year 1974, gevemed by the
Ruies, 1969 having coII;e_4i11td”fQ’ifee
Rule 5 provides for reseIvat1;6n,:._i:1 the oflflciisposal
ef the lands to pers0fi$.. %SChee11.i$Ved Caste
and others, Whflfi Rule 6
the en:i e-_rj of provides for conditions of
gram, ijieiaifiiee’-né§1:1–a1ienation of the granted fiend
. “fQ}{»-_ of V years from the date of taking
%V.’)I-fie said ruies applies te all granted lands
n1.;é.kee§i1e exception fer gent made for upset price
‘. ‘eI§1ess’~—- :I:ha:1 upset price er a flee grant as was in
_’ ‘exieienee has been dame in the eariier rules. in ether
‘*’-vfierds, the larzd ganted under 1969 Rulee made fer an
Lzpeet mice er less than upset price or a flee gent,
9)*’\
were subjected to r1cz2″1~aiier1ati0n period of _
from the date of faldng passessiogy
7. S11b.sec{b) of Sec.{2} 9f ‘the Act def?fir;;§V’: ‘gI’éin£ed
land’ to mean any land by tIic.C§o’§ieri11nefit to
a pcrson belonging t:§ _”any–‘_VAéfS§ii1¢éule§i Castes or
the ScheduledAV_TIibe$..a:ind V allotted 01″
granted to iindérVvflié’1’élevant law for the
time i:géi11TVg”i=;?1.fi*'{V>rCé :re143;t:Ei_’1g tdiagraxian refom1s’ 01* land
ceiling Gr ab<:«liti_0 r;fV<;f» other than that relating to
herecliizary 0.': and the word 'grantsd' shall
. 'bcf ac§f'<fifi*€ii31g13'. In that View of the matter,
Iand ganted to the petiiiianer, though
f0f'~.a11 price fails w:itl':iI1 the definition term
"'gIfaz1te'a§– "1a:{1d' under the Act and as a Consequence,
fgéiisiviihin the mischiaf of tha axpressien 'transfer'
~~ui:1der the Act, imzesting 3 _iu1'i.sc1ic'£_ior3. in the 'Asst.
Commissioner, under 360.4 of the Act. $11 the
circumstances, the findings rezzzordezi by the Asst.
UK
'O
Commissioner and the Deputy C0ma1issionێ ."
iand granted to the petitioner far' an 11j:;3Séf;'* 's:1oe:.$ "
no: fan within the mischief or :Acit,_ i's::"pie:ufiii:1f§i:é.,:
illegal and unsustainabie.
8. Undoubtedly;”i§ied§3_f’}§:§aS’té.f inciudad in
the list of Sc:1’14-:.3;€i:_1_}<":(f1:_' 'Vl'V'IV"ii;;'e.?;f; ,§1c3iifi§f£ition cf the year
19'?'6. The {:Q;31i1ais:§i_o§1_'e1j_ »haVing reéorded a
finding" pefifitiner belongs 1:0 'Mada
castté', }:nue;."-e,3.Vy caste was not includad
in the .1131; 51' %%Asm%edu%:¢a%% Tribe on the date of gant, the
°'~a;1;i:§1C:z'*i'f:if:S;' fell error deciining to exercise a
% i§e:=;'é:;'€e(i in them under the Act, on tbs
pfemisg' ' the said caste was not a deciareci
" "-. "SQh<~:*(iuE£é Tribe an the ciate of gant. A Divisicn
':?37e11€jh of this court in S Nachirnuthu G01mé€r'3 case
-~–{ét.1pra) helé, as 110%: tsnabia, the contention that Whfifi
a casts earlier :0 the Canstitution aznandment *.=va_s not
iisiied as a Scheduied Caste, am: Eh€I’€:f{}I'(fi they t
the persons belonging ‘:0 Scheduled Casm _
the Very same: principle in the mattel’; ‘e::f» ‘j:S:::I’1 éd–1;1e,;ci ‘= ‘V
Tribe, as in the instant cascggit is jzeézriirzss téifzefiteitc;
that ‘Mada caste’ though mcxgdeé sc1;:s;’§1:;;ec1VV%’i?:-me
by a notificaficn of the déemed a
Scheduled Tribe, on ma [date The findings of
the authori1:ic:s_=- below”‘t0– ” ” are perverse
and unsu$t.é;3::a:i§}<:.. 'V "
Thfis ‘ xxinveyatice of the land in
question yéiard 1992,a.fi:er the Act came into
°’f<.)r€:t~:',. iiriflieut 2116." prior permission of the State
by sub–se<:.(2) of S304 of the Act,
st} as 13:) ' diéélare the said transaction and all furiiher
"t;raTnsaCt;i£)ns as 'null and mid'.
10. It is no doubt true that this court in
W.P.3{}508/04 ixzstitutefi by tha petitie:):{1er’s brother,
challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner in
UK
ii
the appeal preferred by the purchase; .t1′:£,§- WV _
allowed the petition and remi::iéd'” “i;.’3c”.pr1Qc:;§_i<3ding' 'V
the Appellats Authoz'ity.,_ revéerifing A' tzi *'
parties to Canvass all the §i'0£i;tentio§is;_ Viwflstant
case, the contesting of the
Iand, in question, challenging
the finding beiong to 'Mada
caste' am} 111131 and binding
on of the matter, the
conten1g€:1}" cv-f thé counsei for the contesting
T6Spt?1}(i§3I1tS; -?(_):1*'é1I}i5i' the proceadixigs to the Deputy
for Consideration afresh is but a
However, it is made dear that the
1 [)ep't31'£iy V-._'C1A:m:$missi0ner shall not be influenceci by the
H . "f1',mi2'_'11g$"' srecarded herein, more appmpriately, the
'fipfidifig of ma caste to which the petitiener belongs,
j whiie deciding the matter remitted pursuant. tea the
" order daized 29.5.2009 in WP. 39503/04
M
In the circumstancss, 1:13.13 petition is alibwed.
The erders of the Asst. Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner rejecting .,
petitioner are quashed and it
thee conveyancvs of the yea:f4_
thereto, in Respect of the T fire 131111 and
void and the land gantee'