High Court Karnataka High Court

Rangappa vs State Of Karnataka By Secretary To … on 11 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rangappa vs State Of Karnataka By Secretary To … on 11 June, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT cm KARNATAKA,  ' 

DATED THIS THE 11TH Daffbfi %.:x&::m,.  
BEFORE   A' V' . ' '

THE HONWSLE MR. Jl}'8'IV'I(2»l'§";"2AlK, "BEOHANV '  ' 

mu-r pmrrxors yo.759g__¢g3__ms 1sc:g-s1'1~ "

BETWEEN :

1 RANGAPPA"  :'

AGES Afgioifi' égfkfizéxké,    " 

:2, RAM2§{:HA'ia;1$iaA:A%1E1'575if_A Q   
AG£«:.§> _Ai$OU"£?;,5? YEARS,' .  ,  

3 'r:mMMA.:A'H'j"--.. "%.,  '-
AGED 'AB(JU'I"' 54 YEAW5,

4 V1:)1VsH1iii:L}'MA:?2 A
,, ._%_AGED Aaomf 52jn:ARs,

LA 5 .  fS3I_f)i)Ai?3'E'.A

_ " AGED -.4gB0m' 47 YEARS,
  ALL«'I7flE'~Ai4'PELLANTS ARE SONS
A ' '01:' _LA'E'}?j;i)OBi3AIAH AND ARE R/AT.
BYETANAKURKE, KORA (HOBLI)

'iEINi;KUR TALUK.  PETITIONERS.

-  '~ "(EA3y; Sri. SHIVNSWAMY 3%
1'   s1=::.«'c M VENKATA REDBY, ADVS.)

%  f_ ' 'V AND:

1 STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SECRETARY TO GOVT
DEPRRTMENT OF REVENUE,
BY" ITS SEERET'AV1ATE. ii ;
   24R



under a Sale Deed executed on 3~2-1965 by    H

grantee who was granted the   

No.DEP.DAR.128/54-55, free oi: cos; 'of¢$11:$ived< by 7

issue of a saguvali chit: Anne'x-u;ve--"B'-",_   '

have presented this  'ii:  the
order dated  the Assistant
Commissioner ano solider dated 10-
933003  in

2.   fiommissioner and the Deputy
 '~   'Med 221 finding of fact that the lands
   granted to a person belonging to the

s¢n;cau1¢d¢;.s¢c on 30-03 1956, free of cost, followed by

 '"-.., '~iessue efa Saguvali chit Annexure-"B" laced with the

  "=£:_m1§iijion of noz1--a1ienatio,t1 for a period of 10 years

K  fjqereikom, on enquiry under The Kamataka Sehecimed

    Castes and Scheduied Tribes (Prohibition of 'I'rarssf"er of





Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for short the Act, into, 

filed by Respondent No.4 » the legal heir  3  _  

3. The contention of the

petitioner that in the absex:1_eeV_% o£’A’Lh_e V age t ” ‘

certificate, the authorities not -gusfified in
declaring the transactiofloft’ and void and

directing restoration inmy considered

opinion,–~ eiineuxzftstances of this case,
must stand’ re}):eIifec1,% *r»”1*I3eV”Assistant Commissioner, the

fact findViVi1g as well as the Deputy

r ._ «–‘Ati;e.Appe1late Authority, having perused

feeaenue records, concluded that the 43*

‘if;-.5; Iegaj representative of the deceased

entitled to restoration and resumption of

more so when there was no dispute that

K grantee was a member of the Scheduied caste and

the saie transaction, apparently, was in breach of the

condition of non-alienation, attracting the proV”iSio¥1is’»l’-of”

the Act.

4. Having regard to the

the light. of established inhthe it

the first transaction daiied beiiig””wi1:i1iI1 the

period of 10 years it the date of

Saguvali ohita..v.v’e:S’jnot§;_oIii§{i.a Ilieiiiityvfiffitialso Void. The

tra11sIe17ee=-.-.:aii_efiee. uiidef ¥jt”1’e~~ii:1*st alienation did not
derive fight; _ t:r_:’i:i1i:t«;rest in the said land and

therefore not :3, better title than what he

= ageetion -<iV"Vo:iv'—-~t~.i'*1'e Act prohibits any person from

pxefseaszxig iand either before or after the

eoin,;iieneeir§§::it of the Act, in violation of or breach of

' tile terineand conditions of the gant.

The orders of the authorities are W€H~II16'E'itCd,

" fziiiy justified and do not Suffer from any legal iniinnities

ealiing for interference in exercise ofwrit. juI'isdi.ction.

EWE.,:_ {\

KS

Writ petition is accordingly, rejected.