Karnataka High Court
T.M. Rangaiah And Anr. vs The Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur ... on 31 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2002KAR1897, 2002(5)KARLJ188
Author: A.V. Srinivasa Reddy
Bench: A.V. Srinivasa Reddy
JUDGMENT A.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.
1. The appellants are the purchasers of the land granted to respondent 3. They are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by them challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur and the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the Act' for short) restoring the land in favour of the grantee, respondent 3.
2. We have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.
3. The land was granted to the original grantee on 12-1-1965 and the saguvali chit was issued on 13-12-1965. The sale having taken place on 9-3-1970, the Mysore Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1960 would apply to the facts of the case. Rule 43-G(4) of the said Rules reads as under:
"(1). .....
(2). ......
(3). .......
(4) Where the grant is made free of cost or when the grant is made at the price which is less than the market value the grant shall be subject to the condition that it shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land".
Even according to the case of the appellants, as made out before the Deputy Commissioner, the grant in the instant case was on upset price. If the grant is for upset price, the period of non-alienation would run for 15 years from the date of grant as per Rule 43-G(4) of the said Rules. The sale having taken place on 9-3-1970 it is well-within the non-alienation period of 15 years.
4. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us mainly on the ground that respondent 3 belongs to Valmiki community and not to Nayaka community. Whether respondent 3 belongs to Nayaka community or Valmiki community is of little relevance now, as both these communities have been included in the Schedule of Scheduled Tribes by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Second Amendment) Act, 1991. Therefore, the orders of the authorities under the Act is immune from challenge on the ground that respondent 3 belongs to Valmiki community and not to the Nayaka community.
5. What remains is the challenge to the order on the ground that, on the date of grant both these communities had not been included in the Schedule of Scheduled Tribes and, therefore, the sale in their favour is not in violation of the provisions of the Act. On this premise it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that these lands could not have been restored in favour of respondent 3.
6. This question is no longer res integra as this question had been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1982 Kar. 1310 by holding that though the community 'Nayaka' was not recognised as Scheduled Tribe as on the date of grant, yet, the existence of the community as well as their underprivileged status not being in dispute and the grant of land having been made under the scheme, any sale of such land during the non-alienation period would be hit by the provisions of the Act. Thus, the only other surviving ground also does not merit acceptance.
7. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.