Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 4 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
Section 3 in Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [Entire Act]
Section 48A in Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
O. Dyamappa vs Apanna Bhovi And Ors. on 20 March, 1997
In O.Dyamappa v. Appanna Bhovi and
others (1997 (3) KLJ 683) in paragraph-15 of the
-: 16 :-
judgment, the Division Bench has affirmed the view of a
Single Bench in Siddoji Rao vs. State of Karnataka
and Others (1983(1) Kar L.J. 478) to the effect that an
order of the Land Tribunal stands overridden by the
provisions of the PTCL Act. In the case of Siddoji Rao, a
member of the scheduled caste was granted land with a
stipulation that he should not alienate for 15 years but in
violation of the same, he sold the land to a person who in
turn leased the land to the petitioner therein. The said
petitioner had obtained the occupancy rights under the
Land Reforms Act by establishing that he was a tenant as
on 01.03.1974. The grantee, on the enforcement the PTCL
Act made an application before the Assistant
Commissioner seeking resumption and restoration of the
granted land on the ground that the alienation made by
him was void, which application was allowed and
restoration of possession was ordered. The said order was
assailed by the tenant. In those circumstances, this Court
held that, Sections 4 and 11 give a overriding effect to the
-: 17 :-
PTCL Act and the order of the Land Tribunal not
withstanding that, the Assistant Commissioner was right
in declining the sale void and restored the possession to
the grantee. The said position is squarely applicable to
the present case.
1