AN:>_{; "
IN THE man comrr or KARRATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAYOF4AUGUS;i'_f2§§D8'
THE HONBLE MR. JtJs':'i§:;.*§;_ HA2»:
wrzrr PE'I'l'I'IO1'{.NO. 1a#§§3 01? 2606: :{;SC,;ST)
BETWEEN: A 5 V.
R c RAJESHWARI. %
AGED ABOUT.vfi5.VYEAli?S ;: 4.
w/0. R CHIKKA .i?E._ DA.PPA A
AGRICULTJJRESTV""'?._ A %
R/AT. THYAQARMA e:;o.I.csmr _
MULAF32X('}1'sL '
KCBLAR Dxsrmcrr,
% % H _ A 3 PFIFITIONER
(BY SR1. GPAPI f€El.:ii 3_Y,V
' 1 V. 3jEPU'1'Y COMMISSiONER
_}§Q AI€..I}I_$TRICfF, KOLAR
2 A THEv'V}£Sf:§ISTANT COMMISSIONER
KQLAR SUB--[)IVISi0N'
KOELAR.
' '' 3 .. 3 ' VENKATARAMAPPA
* . AGED ABOUT 3'? YEARS
SID. VENKATANNA BOVI
VOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
DUGGASANDRA HOBLI
MU LABAGAL TALUK
KOEJLR DISTRICT. bk
SA
513
VENKATARAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O. HANUMANA BOW
HARAPANAYAKANAHALLI
DUGGASANDRA HOBLI
MULABAGA1. TALUK
KGLAR DISTRICT.
SRIRAMAPPA
315:0}; DECEASED REP._BY
ms LRs. ' .
SRIMATHI "
AGED ABOUT 3:; mags ' , .
w/0. LATE SRIRAMAPPA : L
R/AT KE¥zAsAMANGALAfV1LLA§3;aj.,
NANGALI POST, VMUvL£sA<3e;rLL,%r,a.LU«;<"
K()LAR_D£ST'_RI(l'£_'.
:'MASTER'-VENHATESVH L L
man A3oLrr.7L¥EAR3
S] Ct. LLATEv--SRIRA1VE.APPA
RIA1'; ..KERASA}L RERBY HIS MOTHER AND
" 'L :\rA°:'U«RAL_ GUARDIAN MS. SRIMATHI
_r2E;~::P{)NDENT 5(A)
(Afi.4ENI)EI:j4i'AS PER THE ORDER D'I'I).15.7.2008)
Mi3NxYAL4MA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
w/o. SR1. MUNISWAMY
HARAPANAYAKANAHALLI
DUGGASAINHDRA HOBLI
MU LABAGAL TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS
M
the land to Smt Jareena Begtun under
saie deed dated 12.7.1972. The said
in turn, sold the iand to R
9.8.1978 who conveyed the prctaeetjr in A' of e
petiticmer under sale deed legal
heirs of the Asst.
Commissioner under _ Caste
and schedu1¢c'm§:.fibés(1e'mf;itsieers'o:'!i4ransrc;~ of Certain
Act, and after an
enqmfy. jjyz crdet' 1999 Annexure G, though,
fszidizig the rule appiicabie to the said
. " 1i'n:i};).OSed restriction of non alienation for a.
" and the transfer by conveyance of
t1A1e__V land was in breach of the condition,
neveftheiess, held that the petitioner having perfected
'~.eher..tit1e by adverse possession for a mriod of 12 years
t feom the date of first sale upto the date of coming into
fame of the Act dated 01.01.1979, rejected the
representation. The legal heirs of the grantees
Eflx
5
Carried the order in appeal whence the T
Commissioner by erder dated 20"?
Amlexure H set: aside the ;'di'cier¢_ "sf
Commissioner, declared V the:__tfa;isfer _--~_eby. V'
conveyance as null and and
restoration. Hence, t.'hi.s peiiiieeg'
3. Sri; -Pafigi Vcounsei for the
petitienereijs 's.£.';1§i1;issieu that on the date
of Revenue ( Amendment]
Ruies, 3:"erV's11.e:ff.' Iéiiles, was applicable. Sub--rule(4)
4__3-G" "efvt.¥:1e Rules reads thus:
_ :V"'e":(4}..Where the gent is made free of
made at a price which is less
tiianihe full market value, the grant shali
x T H subject to the condition that the land
shall net be alienated for a period of fifteen
years from the date of the grantee talcing
possession of the land, after the gent.
Provided that such land may be
alienated with the previous sanction of the
Government and subject to such conditiei1sf"%:'«,c:
as the Government may specify,
Cxovernment is of the opinion _fJm:1t:f:~.. « _
circumstances of any
reasonable to permit V sucfi V ;1:Iiei.iatio1f.._t eiti1ef ' ' -. '
for purposes of acquitifig V_so1:o'c or
for any other purpose. --
4. According to that k a perusal of
the gent 3: to "F" though
disc1ose---~sp£ey::tief;t each of the gantees
said ts me» 'i';ec;¢vt;"-mccq ),
nevertheiess,-do -_;1i:.-ht disclose whether such price Was,
Commissioner records that ,1jesti'icti_oi1 for 10
years, the Deputy 'records that the
rest;r'iction..i§15 possible for either of
the aiitheiities' that the grants were laced
with a coiiditioh-__oi'..Viio:'ii' alienation for a mriod of 15
'~ ;s.',TIV:'ht,_1s, of fact over whether the price
tdiigiantees constituted full market value or
full market value would determine the
apphcahility or otherwise or sub.ru1e(4) of Rule 43-G
' ff iizhe Rules. Neither of the authorities having exerted
V' themselves over collating material, nor iecord
findings over the critical fact, in my opinion, feli in
UK
8
error in concluding that the gents were laced with a
condition of non alienation for a period of 15 years.
6. The finding over whether the
the gantees constitute fufl or
the lands granted, being one of tréco:§éings, *'
of evidence of the parties oral'
and collating relevar;t4_'m.atc.3i'.iai,A snbstrmtial
legal evidence, ibeweoznveniently done in an
enquiifiy by the ,4'i'Co1n_'Ifiissioner, after extending a
reasorzaloxle - of hearing to the parties
.....
:3 A far, as the challenge to the finding of the
Deputsfl. Commissioner that the claim of adverse
possession was unsustainable, more appropriately as
‘ the grant was not absolute, but conditioned by a
restriction on the alienation, though not discussed in
33%
great elaboration, in my opinion stumbleci
correct decision.
8. The Apex Court, in 1
D.C.Chitradurga, 11,12 s.,2o08§r_, 1805,”
repelled the contention tlfiaiih “‘1’1o’-£3 being a
depressed class Category, the
purchaser of ‘_ rggfiaigravenfion of the
condition of her title by
years, before the act
came V lordships followed the
obserVatioi1sV_of thei Court in Guntaiah 8:. Others –
” _ Siotiiers (paragraph 8) reported in 2005
“9.,__i* In my considered view, this findings does not
for interference since, a finding on whether the price
was against full or less than market value of the
lands granted, leads to the applicability or otherwise
Sub—Fi2u.le(-4) of Rule 43″G’ and if the Rule applies, the
11 ._
apply, in 1:11:-:: light of following the decision of a_4vi):i1zi:si.pn
Bamrh of this court in Putaveeraiah
Karnataka :33 Others reported __in 1996(:5;.ii L .41,”
34(DB).
The writ petition is afiesiéd ‘a;_:cord’iI1g1y,A..:§
Gag = : Judge