xi) .
IN THE men comm' or «
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY=:QF:Aij{'}US;'If 'A T
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR. JUsT1CE%. V'»mVM 1§§3DDY
WRIT PE'FiTION"'N{},. 1439;} (SC/ST)
BETWEEN; '
SI-IIVAMMA mo. 5(;1.;e1¥APm
AGE 64 YEARS_"--. » M.
REP. BY HER. P'-A :1}§:oLr)E;VR I ~
13 A HAisE'UI»£.AA1*iTHA§;i'iH
S] 0. ANADANALPPA 'V « _ v
AGE41IA PRAYING TO
QUASH 'I'HE.--{'r§?DER'_ DTD,,2Q.o14;2i;05,.PAssED BY THE R2.
THE LEAREIED; "DEPUTY'*C3:OMMISSiONER, TUMKUR, VIDE
ANWD ANI>m~G44 A % *
THIS PET{'FI§3N," COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARINGIN"B' <7fE?.OU_P;.fI'I;IIS DAY THE coum MADE
THE FOLLOWING: ,1 %
V 'V ' purchased 2 acres out of Sy.No.26/ 1
of village, Dabbegatta hobli, Turuvekcre
'*:1_ޣier a sale deed. dated 13.10.19?4 executed by the
A " fe;§pondent, the gasntce of the land. The petitioner when
' viaaited with a nofice of proceetiiugs under the Karnataka
Wf-Scheduled Casi:-:,s and Schttduied. Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for short the Act,
" V
entered appearance and opposed the application. 1'
Asst. Commissioner, after an enqui. 4,' 1
21.1.2002 Amxexure C held that
the sale deed dated 13.10. of * 1'
non-alienation of ten years i.e.
31.12.1939 and hence _of the Act. The
4333 respondent " appeal, the
Deputy 1. 2005 Annexme
D afloweq the order of the Asst.
CommissieItei;’j’z1ee_1s:ed« of sale as null and
void, and restoration of the iand to
the o;cigi;pa1 Renee, this petition.
_Le.aA1ned” for the petitioner contends that
is dated 31. 12. 1957, for an up set price, with
at c§eaieefi’i¢£i§aon aiienation for a penlod of 10 years from
the efhv grant, as pmvided in the Mysore Land Revenue
1′ ” bflmught into force by notification dated 6*’-” July,
. and 12/18.1.1956 for short Rules of 1950, and the
1 deed executed on 13.10.19′?4, is not in breach of the
M
4
condition of grant. According to the learned
Asst. Commissioner was fully -j”lISfif2’l’€d~: 8, u
finding that the alienation was not {hit
Learned counsel hastens that * L’
certificate was issuedfi . on a
condition of non of 10 years,
nevertheless, rtlne non’ ought to be
computed 15:’ and not from
the dategf1the:§gntV’V’£:e1~nfiea}e_H:iIn :$aridition, it is contended
that afiéer of nofification dated 10″‘
May, the Mysore Land Revenue
(Am¢n.:1men£)’ 1§59 ; for short Rules, 1960, Rule 43-J
. ‘ fbzqé land to persons to Wham lands
before the commencement of the
fiulee, the land is available for disposal and
“..,condistip;s’s of lease have been complied with. According to
Counsel, the grant of land in the year 195?’ in
fégvour of the 4″‘ respondent, must be reckoned as a
grant of lease of hand, temporarily, and the grant ceriificate
issued on 29.08.1974, is to be deemed as a grant under
9%
‘_ DE§=€–.:’1*Ye’* CVOM NIi-SSQNVER, CHITRADURGA AND OTHERS
ii?! 2002 KAR.2’?58, interpreted the meaning of
‘;J:i_a.te’§;of..gx’ant”, for the purpose of computing the
V 1*i}£”~8y Rviiles, to be understood as from the date of taking
Zpoésession of the land. Learned counsel further submits if
Rule 43-.1 of the Rules, 1960. It is iastly contendge
Tahsild/ar who issued the grant certificate on
incompetent to impose the condition of -V
3. Per contra, learned count-gel for t_3:1e._4’h respo3;(1e;1tA’
seeks sustain the onder ofthe Depiity Corefifiefiionégr’ \’
being well merited, fuiiy ju’§*t:i:Vfi;e:i’ for V
interference. The 1ea:m’;e’d«_ ‘ jé « ‘ fi:a”t’ the 49*
respondent was put in land only
after the issueiof 11. 1974 Laced
with a condifio;ti*– a period 10 years from
the date”o’f’ “:not from the date of the
order of {he learned counsel, at Full
Bench of coo1?_t i1V1” case of the NARASAREDDY VS.
of: «1.:31*e’ecription against the alienation under 1956 and
M
the iaw Laid down by this court is applied to ‘
case and non aiicnatzion period of
20.08.1974, the sale deed executecllhn7.13510:19%?-iflinu
of the petiiioner was
4. Having heard the cgunséi thé} parties,
peruseci the pleadings then: is no
dispute that the VA ordered to be
granted to of the scheduled
caste. Tho1i:Laguh.;::f_}i;s. tbs date of the order of
grant ‘ nsxésfflssless, the Assistant
Commissitsncf of fact that the order of
grant is dafiéd There is also no dispute that
grant dated 20* August, 1974, states
for an upset price, while demancating,
of boundaries of the 2 acres of land
ganicd {the 4″? respondent and irnposing a condition of
V’ afiefiafion for a perioé of 15 years therefrom. Q fi
JR
7
5. The statement of objections fixed by the poasgooor
in the proceedings before the Asst. Commissiongo’-r*–
disclose the advancing of a pkea that the land. -A
to be gantcd was by way of the * L’
oontraly, it is specifically [. was for
an upset price, laced O.f}:f1QI’1 alienation for
a period of 10 the Mysore
Land Revenoé.:v contention of the
learned Rule 43~J of the
Rules, who issued the grant
cefiificofe incompetent to impose the
condition of; nofi~aiieni3:fioi3, cannot be countznanced. More
.– V. _,ovoi*,.’. 4o*1§rcspoiido1::t is the giants: whiic the petitioner
— cannot be pexmifixd to question the
dated 20.8. 1974 imposing the condition of
‘V.,VI1OI1-a§t}’I;AtEZ2t’;.OI1. On that were too, that contention must be
” of “rI:3’Vc:L<'§t¢d.
T “ativanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
” 6. The sum and substance of the contention
M
8 ‘.
the meaning of expression ‘date of gant’ for the
computing the period of preacription against
act out in Rule 43 A(3)(a) of the Rules b
Janualy 19, 1955, Rules of 1956, Cnght:Ato;1)’e re¢k§nedt.V fr¢3p’en,
the date of order of the grantand nettfam tiate éf
grant certificate. The Answer q1.1€.SiV’.i(.\_IV_3t”i’.3-.V.Vi’i’10V.”‘1t}'(VV)t;t”: rea
integra in the light of &_ proneiinéetnent of
the Full Bench of this casdsupra).
The Full that the grant
and grant distinct matters
divorcevri” t }:’1eVEd”} that without a gaunt
certifi(:Va*t,e,” ” efiectuated. According to
the Lea2ned«..qudges, the that the legislative intent from
«_ theV»»’~§:§vertEs used”-Vi1;_____3:959 Rules Where instead of the term
»’dVa<.~go£ the 'date of possession' was introduced and
certificate is to be taken as the date on
grantee was put in possession, irrespective of the
V Vt,:ciate4ofVV"'grant, it is the date on which the petitioner was
possession under the grant certificate that would
-~ht)1d the field for the purpose of computing the period.
M
9
Applying the very same principles to the fact
the grant certificate dated 20.8.1974 b
of the pmperty gzranted,
metes and bounds, with exterbxdg
be said that the 4&1 pue «fiesgession of
the aaid land oniy on and
as a consequence, the $1′ 15 years is to
be and not from
the date”e”f the sale transaction
on -..,_i_ssue of grant certificate dated
2o.os.197§;’ ebeindgd of the condition of non-
alienation miist be held’ be void.
« V’ *~ ‘i1:’is{‘f1::1_t the case of the 4&1 respondent grantee that
“‘}1ed.:vs1s; of the property on the date of oxder
V ~V of are there records to establish the delivery of
dd of the land an the date of grant in the year 1959.
Fdeieever Without demamating the land and fixing of
‘”beu11da1:ie.s, the 4″‘ respondent ceuid not have been put in
possession of the granted land in the year 1959, since such
bk
10
an effort is forthcoming only finm the grant
20.08.1974.
In the circumstances, V ;1£)~..¢xcc;§tipnVcarz_’t:it: “ia1Lén to
the reasons, findings, and eoxiclusipns a;’1iv.cdVA,sit by the
Deputy Commissioner } D.
Sd/-Q”
Judge