IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAJRNATAKA AT BAEVGALORE
DATED THIS THE 215T DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.G.sABHggHi~T.' A' %
AND
THE I-IC)1\g*f3LE MRSJUSTICE;BVTTNAGARATHNA 'V,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 898 oF'201~0 E' 4
A/W MISC. WRIT No.._8344 o1«"*.2o':_0
BETWEEN :
c.s. BASAVARAJAPPA,
s/0 NINGEGOWDA, ._ x
AGED ABOUT 45_YEARS--,w-. _ '
cHIKri;MJ1'KzxTTA:.L1 VILLAGE...
JAVAG.AL'1*lOBLE.':"'-~., " ' '
ARASIKKEZRE. TALUK; . "
HASSAN DISTRICT. A
. ...APPELLANT
' _ (B3%._i{21 ANAGARAJAPPA & ASS'i'S., ADVS. ,}
' 1..;THE.,1:.=.E1>UTy~~COMMISSIONER,
. CHIKKALMAGALUR DISTRICT,
-cH1§:KA1v:AGALUR.
2. 'i'I~I.1:2.¢A'{SSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
AA ' TARIKERE SUB~DIVISION,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. SMT LALITHA BAI.
W/O MALLANAIKA.
TB. KAVAL,
SAKARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
(BY SR1 D. VIJAYKUMAR, AGA.,)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS I«'ILED7UNI)ER SEOTIONV 4i'OVI§"'-..y
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT pRAT_1Ns'v4..TO.»sET--.,'
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED, IN THE. \7WRf£T "PETITION
NO3152/2010 (SC/ST] DATEI)___O3./_O2/2010;.
MISC. WRIT 8344/.10 IS 1rILET)'vvIUI\3_DER SECTION 5
OF THE LIMITATION AcT"PRA'¥1Nsii'-TO' CONDONE THE
DELAY OF' I DAY IN FILING» THE. ABOv"E;APPEAL IN THE
INTEREST OE_.m4S'TIcE.. '
_WRIT'1--:APPEALIV'A'/w,.T1\IISc WRIT COMING ON
FOR pRELIMz't3.AR1<y H.EAR1N_G.THIS DAY, SABHAHIT J.,
DELIVERED THE jf-'OLI.Ow_ING;;
QJDGMENT
y ;::'This "appealdisiiled by the unsuccessful petitioner
2010 being aggrieved by the Order (it.
3.2;.201v_0; Zyvnerein the learned Single Judge of this
has declined to quash the order passed by the
fi_rSt..respOndent~Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur
md-idstrict in appeal dt. 29.12.2009 confirming the order
passed by the second respondent ~ Assistant
Commissioner under Sec.5 of the Karnataka Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe [Prohibition for Transfer-.vof
Certain Lands] Act, 1978 [hereinafter referred: C
for short) and has confirmed the~£)rdeI”.pass.ed”‘by:»pVt}:eif
second respondent dt. 6.1.2009}; ‘
2. The third respondeVrit:’he’reinh ‘filed. application
before the Assistant.’ –‘._1’arikere Sub-
Division, seeking for
declaration’that””‘the: in favour of the Writ
petitioner’ void as the land was
granted. belonging to scheduled
caste. and Chasivbeen alienated on 4.11.1998 i.e., after the
‘C it into forcetff The Assistant Commissioner after
“th.eV:’_iappeI1ant and third respondent herein
held that thiefalienation in favour of the appellant which
Vi after— coming into force of the Act w.e.f. 1.1.1979.
“Section 4(2) of the Act reads as follows :
§x..§~
!
“No persons shall, after the commencement of
this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer
granted land Without the previous permissions’ ”
of the Government.”
Since the grant had been rnadeigingp faVc:'{1r’of_’: A”
belonging to scheduled caste aliieiiation
the appellant herein was”s_tib.seqtient -iinto’-A’
force of the Act without obt_atining”–.prior ” permission as
required under Sec.-4(l2}’lA’of application for
declaring thatthe aliienlatiori restoration of
the lari’dd’to”thfe_vatgléllicarzt”wasdallowed and the same was
confirmed ~ by’ Commissioner. Being
aggrieved .ftheWrit Petition was filed. The
Single ‘Jiidge after hearing the counsel
parties held that as the alienation is
s1i1′)Seq1_1ent.:’~”to coming into force of the Act. Admittedly,
pnnop permission is obtained, the alienation is void and the
._d’o_rd’ei’: passed by the respondent is justified and
“accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. Being
. _ Kr
aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge
(it. 3.2.2010 this appeal is filed by the writ petiti.o’n.le_ri_l”i–vV
3. We have heard A1eaffi§d*eli’lle’¢bqn.se1tt
appearing for the appellant.
4. The learned fl”appeariI’1’gVtor the
appellant submitted ‘ i.e., the
Assistant Commissioner
have not the alienation is
before:v’torll’afte’r_v olfldprohibition for alienation
and thesame been considered as it is a
condition preeedeiit Albetore declaration of sale deed as
‘l V. “vopild-. The learnedlgingle Judge ought to have been set
by the Deputy Commissioner —
resp.onde11t’§i\lo.1 Confirming the order or the Assistant
” _l’Con1missioner–respondent No.2 as the same is opposed
l
5. We have given careful consideration to the
contention of the learned counsel appearing’forflthe
appellant and the Government Advocate wh..o:—-is’ ‘
to take notice for responden’rmNos’. .2.4_’_a.n'(i!,V
scrutinised the material on record, A
6. The learned.g.Aidv’o’oate argued in
support of the order Single Judge
and submittevd’:th_at coming into
force of previous permission
has bere’n’Vo’btaine’dl:’; ‘ ‘ ‘
have llgiir/en careful consideration to the
. .””eonitention”l’of theflmlearned counsel appearing for the
ii’-.par~ties.an.d sic:-rjutinised the material on record.
material on record would clearly Show
mihat the .. land comprising in Sy. No.35l measuring 4
aéres’ 28 guntas situated at Tandrebhorekaval,
T Sakarayapatna Hobli, Kadur taluk, Chikkamagalur
E , :
K}; -5???
district was allotted to the member belonging to
scheduled caste — father of the third respondfenlt~gg«~
Ramanaika on 31.3. 1973. The said land was *
appellant by Rarnanaika on 4~.3.:l~.w1.998.’._:*/5lctl_l_:has ll
come into force from ”
alienation is subsequent to hinto’foreel°of”‘the Act”
and admittedly no p_reviou’s:..l ‘pei’rnissilon’-A has been
obtained for the alienation the process is
contrary to of the Act and
wherefore,i’ by the Assistant
ComInissio’n.erv_coriiirtne.dlinllhtlhelappeal by the Deputy
the learned Single Judge is
unassailable.hholdlthat order of the learned Single
~’ v ,.4.JAud*gle jtistifiedvand does not call for any interference
appeal. Accordingly, Writ appeal is
dis1niss_ed.i it
infxiew of the fact that appeal is dismissed on
V”-“_rn.erilt3, it is unnecessary to consider the application for
‘$\,£~'”\,%,*’§S
condonation of delay of one day in filing the appeal and ._
the same is accordingly disposed of.
BNS