Karnataka High Court
G K Mallikarjunappa vs Deputy Commissioner Davanagere ... on 20 July, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.S Patil
WA 1 692 / 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 201"" DAY OF JULY, 2010.' "
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE;'i{:L'.:N1AN;.;U;~;'Aifr1_ V' ' _
AND
THE HONBLE MR.JUS*1%cE B.'s.._FA1"ftL
W.A.No 1.§592/200$' -ST]
BETWEEN:
Sri G.K.Ma1Iika;jun;§ppa,
S/0 Kotrappa, ' *
Age 44 years, __
R/0 Jalabadala1.\i'ii11:g:ge, " '
Channagiri +Ta.1g};.,
Davanagejre Distiiipt
(By Sri
AND:
1'; ._ }f)eputy~ Commiééiéner,
. Da.v_a11agere'vD~istrict,
_ Davanag;-re. V'
2. Assistant.Cémmissioner,
_ Daxfanagere ' Sub--Div1'sion,
' Davanagere.
= . V' Srijfihimappa,
'S/0 Kariyappa,
Age---42 years, Agriculturist,
-«RT/o~ Ganadakatte Village,
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District.
</
... APPELLANT
. . . RESPONDENTS
WA 1692/2005
Karnataka Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands} Act, 1978 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), respondent No.3 made an app'1:.eati.onl.'before the Assistant Commissioner, DavangereCSub=-.Divisio11.Vin"Cas'e No.PTCL 12/2000-01 for resumption or_1ono on fg1~ouo'di:hot--..p the sale made by his father in-favour. of ._t1'1Ae_"'.=falthelrl of the appellant was in contravention poflltlhieié and"'co'nlditions of the grant. The application' came to be rejected by pavangere, on 31.10.2001. respondent No.3 filed an appeal before. Davangere, who inturn allowed holding that the land was granted to thefather _ot're's.pondent No.3 who was a Scheduled _ Caste andlthat the sale made by the father of respondent of the father of the appellant was in corltrayentionv...oi;"the terms and conditions of the grant. Aggrieyed order of the Deputy Commissioner, writ .4 H '' petition was "filed by the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge after considering the case, it C _ l4"dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. These concurrent findings of the Deputy {V WA 1 692 / 2005 Commissioner and the learned Single Judge are in question in this appeal.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
8. The main contention of the Ailearned c§:;n'se1= appellant before us is, that the Coniznisisioneiigasddvrell as the learned Single Judgevfailed tha't"thtejAssistant Commissioner had rejectedlthe' vfor"1'esumption of the land on the of the terms and conditions of by the father of respondent.No§"3.o:i.n el1ant's father. According to him, the the father of respondent No.3 for an upset 4_ price" and " therefore there was prohibition to _vgalienat£§"the. land fora period of 10 years from 06.02.1957 sale is made in the month of August 1967, the .Safne Valid as there is no contravention of the terms and conditions of the grant. He further contends that the Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge in/iLhout..A'considering the fact that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the grant, set aside the order of the A"---«Assistant Commissioner. In the circumstances, relying upon the judgment in the case of PEDDA REDDY VS STATE OF V WA 1692/2005 of the Tahsiidar, Channagiri. According to her. the mutation register of the year 195667 and the saguvali chit regigster' disclose the nature of grant, wherein it prescIihesV'e- alienation for a period of 15 years. V~T'herefor5e, Court to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the learned for the only point that has to be considered is" it it "whether the order Single Judge calls irttergferencefk V.
9. It isnot _ii'i..dis:pute of respondent No.3 had been granted_ landV~.byfvir4tu_e"ofhis caste as Scheduled Caste person. Whenthe land" granted to a Scheduled Caste person, _ the onus "would shiftlon the appellant to show that it was not a V,free grant for an upset price. The appellant who has stepped.into'*«the:tshoes of the grantee and who is in possession of the"'«doc.j-aments of title has to produce the same before the it 4fCourtpto "show the nature of the grant. Admittedly, the original recordstare missing from the office of the Tahsiidar. When the ':'appellant is in possession and has failed to produce the «docurnents to show the nature of grant, it would be difficult for this Court to accept the contention urged by the appellants 6/ WA 1692/2005 Counsel. In View of the mutation register of 195657, we.-are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has not any error in dismissing the writ petition. In the the appea} is dismissed. Parties to bea.r"t'heir s _ t % i=jJUDGE KK