@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.@mdashWrit petition in the third round before this Court at the instance of the purchaser of a piece of agricultural land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 29/1 of Belliganudu village, Channagiri Taluk of Davangere district, who had purchased the land in question in an auction sale conducted by the bank in whose favour the land had been mortgaged for securing a loan raised by the owner of the land at that time. The petitioner purchased the land in such court auction sale in terms of the sale transaction dated 24-11-1987. It is the validity of this transaction and the preceding transaction of sale in the year 1966 effected by the original grantee one Rangappa in whose favour this land had been granted in terms of the grant order dated 13-12-1961 under the Mysore Land Revenue Code and as a person belonging to scheduled caste with certain conditions, that were invalidated by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the orders dated 22-5-2000 and 22-5-2000, copies of which are produced at Annexure-B and D respectively, passed by these authorities, that are questioned in this writ petition.
2. Even before this, while the Assistant Commissioner had once allowed the application of the respondents 1 and 2 in terms of his order dated 5-1-1990 and had invalidated the very transactions, that order came to be set aside by the Deputy Commissioner in appeal preferred by the very petitioner, in terms of order dated 11-5-1996, whereupon the present respondents 1 and 2 had carried the matter to this Court by filing a writ petition in WP No. 1254 of 1998 [copy at Annexure-A] and the matter had been remanded to the Assistant Commissioner with certain observations etc., and it is thereafter, the present orders came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner.
3. The findings by the authorities are that that the land in question is a granted land in favour of said Rangappa, a person belonging to scheduled caste community in terms of the grant order dated 13-12-1961, followed by saguvali chit dated 30-3-1962 and with a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of fifteen years and this condition had been violated by the first sale of the year 1966; that the transaction clearly attracts the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [for short, the Act] and therefore the subsequent transaction such as mortgage In favour of the bank, sale by the bank in auction sale in favour of the petitioner are all necessarily voided and if so, the land has to be resumed to the State and to restitute to the legal heirs of the original grantee. It is to get over such findings and orders, the present writ petition.
4. Sri S.V. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the orders passed by the authorities suffer from several infirmities and deficiencies and it is also in contravention of the very directions that had been issued by this Court in the order dated 15-7-1998 passed in WP No. 1254 of 1998. It is contended that the authorities have not recorded any clear or categorical findings as to the nature of the grant as to whether the grant was on fixing any upset price or reduced upset price or free of cost; that in the absence of such finding, the authorities could not have proceeded any further, inasmuch as it is only recording such a finding, which can lead to the inference as to whether there was a violation of any conditions imposed or impossible and if the question as to whether the violation of conditions of grant imposed under the order or impossible in terms of the Code themselves are absent, no further examination could have taken place; that the authorities have mechanically proceeded to invalidate the sale transaction even without recording these necessary findings for assuming jurisdiction; that in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
5. What is urged is that the grant being one governed by the provisions of Rule 43-G(4) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code, a rule governing such grant at that point of time; that in the absence of a clear finding as to the nature of grant as to whether it was free of cost or for an upset or reduced upset price and if so the condition for non-alienation for 15 years could have been imposed, that the authorities committed an error in assuming the same.
6. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner has recorded an inconstant finding; that even while in one breath he recites that saguvoli chit itself was not available for asserting the nature of the grant, nevertheless, recites in another part of the order that the condition imposed on the grant in terms of the saguvali chit is 15 years and therefore the order cannot be accepted at face value, one way or the other, and though such aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the appellate authority -Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner not having examined these aspects and not having recorded a finding on this, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is also not sustainable and the matter requires to be remanded to the first authority for fresh consideration on this aspect of the matter.
7. Ms G. Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and prays for the dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Submission of Sri B. Manohar, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the statutory authorities, is that the orders passed by the authorities are proper, based on the available records and to consonance with the provisions of the Act and it is also fully in consonance with the direction of this Court in the earlier round of litigation.
9. The finding that the land in question was a granted land under darkhast proceedings in favour of person belonging to scheduled caste community with a condition that the land should not be alienated for a period of 15 years has now become conclusive even in terms of the order passed by this Court in WP No. 1254 of 1998, the relevant portion of which reads thus:
2. It is not in dispute that the land in question measuring 2 acres bearing Sy No. 29 of Belligandu village, Channagiri taluk, Shimoga district, was the government land that was granted to the petitioner''s father Rajappa by the government under dharkast and the saguvali chit dated 30-3-1962 was issued to the granted [sic] in respect of thereof. The grant was made to him imposing the condition that the land shall not be transferred to any person for a period of 15 years....
10. If the grant is in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community, even in terms of Rule 43-G(1), the value of the land upto Rs. 200/- is waived and thereafter for the balance, it is recoverable in instalments. In the absence of material to indicate recovery of any amount from the grantee, over and above the waived amount, and absence of any material that it was at an upset price in the sense for a market value or reduced upset price, the argument that no condition could have been imposed cannot be sustained. The grant in favour of a person belonging to scheduled caste community being at concession price waiving first Rs. 200/- is a foregone conclusion in all grants of the period in (Savour of persons belonging to scheduled caste in terms of Rule 43-G(1). Therefore, it can be necessarily inferred that it is a case where provisions of Rule 43-G(4) are attracted.
11. This apart, even in terms of the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, if the transaction i.e. transfer is in violation of the terms of the grant, and in the instant case the Assistant Commissioner having recorded a categorical finding that the condition was for non-alienation for a period of 15 years and as had been affirmed by this Court, as quoted earlier, the first transaction being of the year 1966 i.e. within five years of the date of the original grant, independent of any other controversy regarding the applicability of Sub-clause (4) of Rule 43-G, the penal provision of Section 4(1) of the Act is attracted on the language of this sub-section and on the foots of the present case. If these initial requirements are met, the provisions of the Act are necessarily attracted and once the transaction is found to be in violation of the condition imposed, even under the grant order, it gets voided.
12. If so, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner are not only proper orders but warranted in the light of the statutory provisions of the Act, as revealed under the provisions of the Act etc. and the facts and circumstances of this case.
13. It is for this reason, I hold that the reliance placed on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the decisions cited and referred to above, do not advance the case of the petitioner for getting over the orders, questioned in the present writ petition.
14. The orders are even otherwise sustainable and if so, no need for interference and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
