ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioners claim to be the purchasers of an extent of 2 acres of land which had been originally granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste in the year 1956.
2. Petitioners claim that they had purchased this land as per the sale deed dated 11-1-1973 executed by one Ramaiah S/o Muddalingagowda who in turn had purchased it from one Mohammed Muzaidulla Khan, who had purchased the land from the original grantee as per the sale deed dated 29-9-1965.
3. The 3rd respondent-Chowdamma, claiming to be a L.R. of the original grantee Halaiah alias Ujjani Halaiah, moved the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 for invalidating the sale transactions and for restoration of land, on the premise that the 1st sale transaction was in violation of terms of the grant and as such it attracts the provisions of the Act for suitable action.
4. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner were initially of the view that the provisions of the Act does not apply to the land in question for the reason that the Government had granted permission on 19-10-1965 to the original grantee to effect sale of the land and as such had rejected their applications. The matter having been carried to this Court by filing W.P. No. 23076 of 1992 and this Court, by order dated 8-11-1996 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the original authority for reconsideration of the matter and to decide afresh the question as to whether the provisions of the Act is attracted or not.
5. On such remand, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner having found that the provisions of the Act are attracted particularly as the first transaction was in the year 1965 as per the sale deed dated 29-9-1965 being earlier in point of time, to the permission granted by the Government on 19-10-1965, the sale is in violation of the terms of the condition of grant and as such proceedings are required to be initiated and concluded under the provisions of the Act.
6. It is as against these orders passed by the authorities under the Act in the second round, that the petitioners are before this Court, questioning the legality of these orders.
7. Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchasers of the land, who had purchased it in the year 1973 and by their hard work and toil have improved the lands and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the land for the past 30 years; that the first sale was effected in the year 1965, just a few days before the grant of permission from the Government and as such the transaction should not be invalidated at this point of time, particularly, when there was an express permission by the Government, which permitted the sale of the land by the original grantee; that even assuming for arguments sake, technically and legally the transaction of sale effected on 29-9-1965 cannot be saved as being one in violation of the terms of the grant, this Court should apply the doctrine of relating back to the permission granted by the Government on 19-10-1965 and that the permission should be construed as a permission relating back to the date of transaction namely, sale deed dated 29-9-1965, in which event the transaction becomes one not in violation of the terms of the grant and the subsequent sale transactions can also be saved and petitioners relieved of great hardship. Learned Counsel submits that in the circumstances if such a course of action is not resorted to great hardship will occur to the petitioners.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the object of the Act in reality having not been realised in the sense that even after all these developments and legislations like Act No. 2 of 1979, it is not the original grantee or their heirs, who are in possession and cultivation of the granted lands but others and if some other person is likely to get into possession of such land even after invalidating the earlier sale transactions by applying the provisions of the present Act, as the land in question may not be retained by the legal heirs of the original grantee for long, the present case is a fit and justifiable one, where this Court by applying the principle of doctrine of relating back can save the transaction and allow the developments as they have taken place and save them from being disturbed.
9. Statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent-applicant before the authorities. It is contended that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. That the orders passed by the authorities below is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the law as declared and settled; that while interpreting all the provisions of this Act; that the petitioners are not entitled for relief for the reason that they have not approached this Court with clean hands and they have also suppressed material facts. Earlier, petitioners had approached the Civil Court by filing O.S. Nos. 30 of 2004 and 32 of 2004 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandya claiming relief in respect of the subject-matter of lands in this writ petition and have managed to obtain an order of status quo before that Court; that they have pursued parallel remedies both by filing a suit which is not tenable in law and subsequently filing this writ petition also; that in the present writ petition, the petitioners have suppressed the developments regarding filing of the suit and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. Sri M.Y. Sreenivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioners have misused the process of the Court. That they are indulging in dilatory tactics and the whole object of the petitioners is to frustrate the 3rd respondent from enjoying the benefits as per the provisions of the Act.
11. Learned Counsel submits that orders impugned being in consonance and in terms of the provisions of the Act, no interference is called for by this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
12. On an examination of facts, it is obvious that the first transaction which had taken place on 29-9-1965 is definitely a sale being in violation of terms of the grant. The subsequent permission like the one dated 19-10-1965 cannot validate the earlier transaction, if it is really in violation of the terms of the grant. It is precisely for this reason that the learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the doctrine of relating back should be employed to save the transaction.
13. The object and purpose of the Act is very clear and the validity of this legislation has also been upheld by Courts.
14. The whole object is to ensure that a piece of land granted in favour of a person belonging to SC or ST is retained by such person or his L.Rs even by invalidating any sale transaction that would have taken place even when the grantee had on receipt of proper sale consideration had effected sale of such land. The focal point of legislation is a grantee or his L.Rs claiming relief under the provisions of the Act. The difficulties or hardship on the part of the purchasers is not a consideration under the provisions of the Act. Any legal principle or doctrine can be called in aid, if employing such a doctrine can achieve the object of the Act. It is not for the Courts to frustrate or defeat the purpose and object of the Legislature by employing legal fictions or legal theories. When once the legislation is found to be valid and in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution, the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that by employing doctrine of relating, the transaction in question should be saved for the benefit of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
15. The orders passed by the authorities under the Act being only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the factual circumstances justifying such orders there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities.
16. The only other question that remains to be considered is as to whether this Court can issue any further direction in the matter to any of the authorities below or the Court before which the suits are said to have been instituted by the petitioners. The orders passed by the statutory authorities under the provisions of the Act are not amenable for correction by filing the suit. It is precisely for this reason such orders are questioned by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Now, that the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities is dismissed, the authorities are duty-bound to implement and to give effect to the orders.
It is needless to observe that even the Civil Court, before which the suits are pending, is bound to take note of this development and to act expeditiously and in accordance with law and to ensure that the proceedings are not used as a device for ulterior purposes.
With this observation, writ petition is rejected.