Karnataka High Court
Manchegowda (Deceased) By L.Rs vs Deputy Commissioner And Ors. on 16 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(6)KARLJ130
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Writ petition is by a purchaser of a granted land that had been granted in favoxir of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community in terms of a grant order dated 12-11-1956 and followed up by issue of a saguvali chit dated 11-3-1965 which had been mortgaged in favour of the petitioner in terms of a mortgage deed dated 5-4-1965 followed up by a sale deed dated 22-11-1966.
2. The Assistant Commissioner to whom the legal heirs of the original grantee had petitioned invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, examined such an application after issue of notice to the petitioner, held an enquiry, found that the mortgage deed dated 5-4-1965 was in violation of the terms of the grant; that it was not only within the period of 10 years even from the date of the grant, but immediately following the issue of a saguvali chit, subsequent transaction of sale also gets voided in view of the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and in terms of the Order dated 30-3-1999 invalidated such transactions, directed resumption of the land to the State and restitution to the applicants.
3. Petitioner being aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner had appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who on examination of the appeal on merits, found that the first transaction by way of mortgage in respect of the granted land being within the period of 10 years is a transfer in violation of the conditions of the grant and therefore the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was one deserving to be upheld and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
4. It is aggrieved by these orders, the present writ petition is preferred by the purchaser.
5. Submission of Sri Kalyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question had been granted on fixing an upset price and therefore the grant should be taken to be as one of transfer of title to the land with the limited condition and if so the petitioner having enjoyed such land for a period of more than 12 years from the date of the mortgage as well as the sale, the petitioner had perfected his title even by adverse possession and prescription and if so the application made before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 1996-97 could not have made any difference to the transaction.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manchegowda v State of Karnataka and Ors., , to contend that the period for prescribing title by adverse possession in respect of private properties or where title had passed, is a period of 12 years; that in the instant case, the grant being on collection of upset price, and may be construed as one under which title had passed to the grantee and if so, the petitioner having perfected his title by prescription, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed such orders.
7. The grant was of a Government land. The grant was in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste Community to enable such grantee to cultivate and eke out his livelihood. The grant was not for the purpose of any transfer, but for the purpose of cultivation. Though it is incidental that some upset price was fixed, that by itself does not mean that the grant is an absolute grant, in the sense that, the grant is on determining the market price and on collecting such price. But, in the present case, even such argument cannot be entertained as even in the upset price that had been fixed at Rs. 400/-, a concession of Rs. 200/- was given in which event, again it is not an absolute grant. In any view of the matter, the Government had not parted title to the property in its entirety as the condition for resumption of the land for violation of the terms of the grant had been reserved under the grant. So long as the condition could operate, it cannot be construed that the grant is an absolute grant, in the sense that, title had been passed to the grantee. If the title had not passed to the grantee, grant was a conditional one. The period required under the law for prescribing title even by adverse possession is 30 years as against the Government and such period having not elapsed, the plea of adverse possession for sustaining the transaction fails and is accordingly rejected.
8. In respect of other factual aspects of the matter, the authorities having examined the factual position and having applied the relevant law and having arrived at a proper conclusion, I do not find any need or necessity for interference in a matter of this nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Writ petition is dismissed.