P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
1. In this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing order dated 21st July 1988, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B, passed by the second respondent confirming the order dated 2nd May 1984, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A, passed by the third respondent declaring the sale of land measuring 2 acres in Survey No. 11/23 of Kallajjnagal village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Shimoga District, as null and void and further directing that possession of the land, referred to above, should be handed over to the original grantee of the said land, one Hanumantha Bhovi (deceased 4th respondent), in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act).
2. Sri B. Rudragowda, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders impugned are illegal and suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record and liable to be quashed as the said orders came to be passed without there being any enquiry held by the third respondent as required under Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. He further submitted that the orders impugned are liable to be quashed on the ground that respondents 2 and 3 have failed to consider that the petitioner has perfected his title in respect of the land in question by adverse possession.
3. Sri M. Siddagangaiah, Learned High Court Government Pleader, supported the orders impugned and submitted that there is absolutely no merit in this petition and therefore the same is liable to be rejected by this Court. He submitted that both respondents 2 and 3 have concurrently found that the land in question came to be sold in violation of the terms of the grant. He further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him for any equitable relief at the hands of this Court as the petitioner has suppressed the facts that there was a detailed order passed by the third respondent and the petitioner has made an incorrect statement in the petition stating that there is no separate order other than the order-sheet Annexure-A, passed by the third respondent.
4. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is not disputed that the petitioner was served with the notice as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') in Form No. 11 and pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner did not file any objections disputing several matters set out in the notice, in respect of which the petitioner was called upon to file his objections. He also did not dispute the status of the original grantee, one Hanumatha Bhovi, as a Scheduled Caste. Further, admittedly, the original grantee belonged to Bhovi caste. In the notification issued by the President of India in exercise of the power conferred on him under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, Bhovi Caste has been notified as a Scheduled Caste. Once the grantee of a land granted by the State is a Scheduled Caste, the nature of the land granted to the Scheduled Caste has to be treated as a granted land within the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act Sub-Section (3) of Section 5 of the Act provides that where any granted land is in possession of a person other than the original grantee or his legal heir, it should be presumed until the contrary is proved, that such person has acquired the land by a transfer which is null and void under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner had not placed any material before the third respondent to show that he has acquired the land by way of transfer which is not null and void under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no enquiry held by the third respondent as required under Section 33 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is not the case of the petitioner that the third respondent denied an opportunity to the petitioner to place necessary material before him. In view of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act, the burden was on the petitioner to show that he has acquired the land by means of a transfer, which was not null and void under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden. Therefore, it is also not permissible for the petitioner to make a grievance before this Court that there was no enquiry conducted by the third respondent before passing the impugned order.
5. The plea of adverse possession advanced by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected on two grounds. Firstly, the said plea was not raised before the third respondent and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said plea either before the second respondent or before this Court. The question whether the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession or not, is purely a question of fact. Unless the said plea is raised before the original Authority and necessary evidence adduced, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the said plea either at the stage of appeal or before this Court. As stated earlier, the plea regarding adverse possession has to be considered in the light of the burden placed on the purchaser of the granted land under Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act. Secondly, the plea of adverse possession urged for the first time before the second respondent is also liable to be rejected on the ground that crucial facts, which constitute plea of adverse possession, have not been pleaded before the second respondent, the Appellate Authority.
6. Respondents 2 and 3 have concurrently found that the land in question came to be sold in violation of the terms of the grant. I do not find any justification to differ from the said finding of fact recorded by respondents 2 and 3 in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, as rightly pointed out by the Learned Government Pleader, the conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him for any equitable relief at the hands of this Court. In Paragraph-5 of the Writ Petition, it is stated by the petitioner that there is no separate order other than the order-sheet Annexure-A produced along with the petition. The relevant portion of the statements made in Paragraph-5 of the petition, reads as follows:
'5....The Assistant Commissioner has not recorded the statement of any of the parties and has passed the impugned order vie Annexure-A dated 2.5.1984. It is submitted that there is no separate order and the other of the Assistant Commissioner runs about five lines. It is not a speaking order.'
In the Statement of Objections filed, at Paragraph-2, it is pointed out that the petitioner has not produced the detailed order passed by the third respondent and he has produced only the order-sheet. The relevant portion of the said Statement of Objections reads thus:
'2. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the petitioner has not produced the detailed order dated 2.5.1984 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. What is produced as Annexure 'A1 is only the extract from the order sheet.'
Though the Statement of Objections was filed on 26.2.1990 stating that the statement made by the petitioner that there is no order other than order Annexure-A, is not correct and the petitioner has failed to produce the detailed order dated 2.5.1984 passed by the third respondent, till to-day, the petitioner has not produced the copy of the said order before this Court. However, at the stage of hearing of the petition, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made available to the Court a copy of the order. No explanation has been given by the petitioner as to under what circumstances the petitioner made an incorrect statement before this Court stating that there is no order other than the order-sheet Annexure-A which was produced along with the petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the only inference that can be drawn on the facts and circumstances of the case is that the petitioner suppressing the true and correct facts, secured an interim order and on account of that, the deceased 4th respondent and his legal heirs were deprived of the benefit of the orders impugned for the last about 8 years. I am of the view that if deliberate inaccurate statement or suppression of material fact by the parties before this Court, is not taken serious note of by this Court while exercising its power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it will encourage every unscrupulous litigant to take advantage of the expert interim order to be secured by him. On many occasions, the contesting respondents, on account of the huge cost of litigation and the procedure involved, may not be in a position to protect their rights and take steps to undo the injustice done to them immediately. Therefore, I am of the view that the party whoever has made either deliberate inaccurate statement in the petition or deliberately suppressed material facts, which have a bearing on the decision of the Court, either while passing interim order or final order, should be denied relief by this Court in exercise of its power under either Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India solely on the ground that the conduct of such party disentitles him for any relief at the hands of this Court.
7. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given time till the end of December 1996 to hand over possession of the land in question to the legal heirs of the deceased 4th respondent, Hanumantha Bhovi, namely, respondents 4(a) and 4(b), subject to the condition that the petitioner files an undertaking before this Court by means of an affidavit that he would hand over possession of the land in question to the legal heirs of late Hanumantha Bhovi on or before 31.12.1996, without compelling either the legal heirs of the deceased 4th respondent or the third respondent to enforce the order impugned passed by the third respondent, within six weeks from to-day. In the event of the petitioner failing to file such an affidavit, as stated above, the third respondent shall implement the order passed by him immediately after the expiry of six weeks from to-day.
9. Sri M. Siddagangaiah, Leaned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from to-day.