Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
View Complete document
Smt. Ningamma vs Siddaramu And Others on 14 June, 1999
Showing the contexts in which karnataka prohibition transfer of certain lands appears in the document
Change context size
Current

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the land in question was granted in favour of one Boraiah, as per petitioner's case, on 19-12-1954 and the title deed issued in favour of Boraiah contained a condition of prohibition against alienation for a period of ten years i.e., clause (8) of the deed. I may make it clear that I am not interpreting, but I only state the fact as stated by the petitioner. Petitioner claimed title on the basis of sale deed dated 27-4-1966 alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioner and his son by the grantee. In proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1979), the Assistant Commissioner declared the said sale deed to be null and void as being in breach of prohibition against transfer. It may be mentioned here that it appears from the order that the notice

contended that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was not communicated to the petitioner and so when it came to his knowledge on 16-11-1998 the petitioner acted swiftly and genuinely and filed appeal at the earliest on 20-11-1998. The learned Counsel contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to this aspect of the matter and law on the subject particularly to the provisions of Section 33 read with Section 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to be read along with Rule 3(5) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 read along with Section 5 and 5(1-A) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. None of the respondents has been able to assert that order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was communicated by the officer to the petitioner. This is a subject which requires to be investigated as to whether the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was communicated to the petitioner as petitioner was absent during the course of proceedings and on that date the order was passed

such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed. Proviso no doubt provides that no such order shall be made except after a due opportunity of being heard is given to the person affected. Rules have been framed under the provisions of Section 10 of this Act. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules 1979 framed under Section 10 of the Act provides vide Rule 3 the procedure about how resumption and restitution of granted land shall be made and sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 provides that: