Full Judgment
1. Heard the arguments of both sides for final disposal of the petition at the stage of admission itself.
2. It is not in dispute that the Government land measuring 4 acres 33 guntas bearing New Sy. No. 886 (Old Sy. No. 604) of Kasavanahalli Village, Chitradurga Taluk, was granted under dharkhast to the late father of respondent 3 ('R3' for short) named Channappa on 28-3-1956 as he was a member belonging to Scheduled Caste. After his death, R3 sold the said land to petitioner on 12-12-1992 under a Registered Sale Deed. Thereafter, he made an application to R1-Assistant Commissioner seeking resumption of the land under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('the PTCL Act' for short). R3's said application was taken on R1's file in Case No. SC PTL/CTA/124 of 1996-97. After enquiry, R1 passed the impugned order dated 29-7-1997, the copy whereof is pro-duced as Annexure-D, allowing R3's application holding the said sale of the land in petitioner's favour null and void as it was alienated by R3 in contravention of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Petitioner was therefore ordered to be evicted from the land for its restoration to R3. On appeal the said order of R1 was confirmed by R2-Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 16-5-1998 at Annexure-E. Both orders of the authorities below at and E are now challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the provisions of the PTCL Act are inapplicable to the transfer of the land in question because petitioner also belongs to Scheduled Caste.
3. Reiterating the above ground, the petitioner's Learned CounselMr. Manjunath, assailed the legality of both the impugned orders below. Reliance was sought to be placed by him on a recent Single Bench decision of this Court in V. Nanjappa v State of Karnataka and Others, in support of his contention that if the alienee of the granted land is also a member of Scheduled Caste, the transfer of the land is exempt from operation of the provisions of the Act.
4. Learned HCGP argued otherwise in support of the impugned orders distinguishing the decision of this Court in the case of V. Nanjappa, supra.
5. The certified copy of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 22478 of 1997 is produced by the petitioner's learned Counsel. Following the Division Bench decision of this Court in Lakshmamma v State of Karnataka and Others , this Court in the case of V. Nanjappa, supra, has held that in view of Rule 29-A, a transfer of the granted land made by the grantee in favour of a person who also belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is a valid alienation which lies beyond the purview of the Act. We do not find in the said order in the case of V. Nanjappa, supra, any mention of the material facts pertaining to the granted land and its alienation, made for the purpose of construing the ambit and scope of Rule 29-A. It is rightly submitted by the Learned HCGP that this decision is distinguishable on certain grounds with reference to facts of the present case. Rule 29-A referred to in the decision rendered in W.P. No. 22478 of 1997 is one of the Rules of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short), which states:
'29-A. Certain conditions not to apply.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 40 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, the provisions of any rule (repealed by the said rule), that the granted shall not be alienated except to the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes shall, with effect from the commencement of the Karnataka Land Grant (Amendment) Rules, 1974, cease to operate'.
A note appended below this rule indicate that it is inserted by Notification No. R.D. 33 LGA 72, dated 27-9-1974, GSR 284, KGD 17-10-1974.
Rule 40 referred to in Rule 29-A is to be found in the Mysore Land Grant Rules, 1968 ('the Rules of 1968' for short) the relevant portion whereof reads:--
'40. Repeal and Savings.--All rules corresponding to the foregoing rules in force in Bombay Area, Coorg District, Hyderabad Area, Madras Area and Mysore Area are hereby repealed:
Provided.....................'.
It was submitted by both sides, that there was no rule existing either prior to 17-10-1974 or any time thereafter permitting the alienation of the granted land situate within the erstwhile Mysore State by the grantee in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. But, there was such a rule existing in the granted lands situate within that part of the erstwhile Madras state which came to be integrated in the territory of Karnataka State on reorganisation of the States. We find that provision contained in sub-clause (i) of Order 41(4) of the 'Standing Orders of the Madras Board of Revenue' ('MBSO' for short) established under the Madras Board of Revenue Act, 1894. This order is reproduced below:--
'41.Reservationof Land for assignment toScheduledCastes.-
(1) ....................................(2) ....................................(3) .................................... (4) (i) Restrictions to be imposed on alienation assignments whether of ordinary land or of valuable land in these areas, will be subject to the condition that the lands shall not be alienated to any person (whether a member of the Scheduled Castes or not) in any manner before the expiry of ten years from the date of the grant nor even thereafter, except to other members of these castes'.
6. Another relevant provision which needs be extracted is Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. It runs:--
'4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands.-
(1).............................. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. (3)................................
7. All the relevant provisions which require consideration for disposal of this petition are extracted above.
8. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions brings this legal position to the fore that Rule 29-A relates only to the granted lands which are situate within that particular part of the territory of Karnataka State which was the part of the erstwhile Madras State andwhich came to be included within the territory of Karnataka on reorganisation of the States under The States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Rule 29-A further makes it clear that MBSO Order 41(4)(i), by which a grantee of the granted land situate in that particular part of the State of Karnataka was permitted to alienate the land in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe after expiry of the non-alienation period, stands abrogated by it with effect from 17-10-1974. Therefore, the said Order 41(4)(i) permitting alienation of any granted land, after expiry of its non-alienation period, in favour of a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe has ceased to he in force with effect from 17-10-1974.
9. Moreover, in the light of Section 11 of the PTCL Act, the Division Bench of this Court in its later decision in Smt. Bhagi Hengsu v Rocky Lasrado, distinguishing the view taken by this Court in the case of Lakshmamma, supra, held:
'By a perusal of Section 11 of the Act, it is undoubtedly clear that the provisions of that Section will have overriding effect over all other enactments. Therefore, the view that Rule 29-A validates the alienations made by the persons other than SC/ST also, is incorrect and improper. On the other hand, in view of Section 11 of the Act, which will have overriding effect over all other enactments, Rule 29-A must yield to it'.
10. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 22478 of 1997 will not support the petitioner's case, more so, when the granted land in question is situate within the territory of the erstwhile Mysore State. In that view of the legal position and in view of the admitted fact that the said granted land was purchased by the petitioner after the PTCL Act came into force without previous permission of the Government contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 4 thereof, its alienation was clearly in violation of this provision. Therefore, both the authorities below have rightly held the sale of the said land in petitioner's favour as null and void. As such, petitioner is liable to be evicted therefrom under Section 5 of the Act.
11. It was submitted by the petitioner's Learned Counsel Mr. B.K. Manjunath that sunflower and other crops are grown in the land by the petitioner and he needs three months time to harvest the standing crops and surrender the land. It is in the ends of justice that petitioner shall be granted time till the end of December 1998 to surrender the land to respondent 1-Assistant Commissioner for its restoration to R3.
12. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is granted time till end of December, 1998 enabling him to harvest the standing crops on the land and to surrender the same to respondent 1-Assistant Commissioner for its restoration to R3.