Judgment:
Manjula Chellur, J.
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit enclosed to the application, Misc. W. No. 3045 of 2009 is allowed by condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the appeals.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as the learned Counsel appearing for respondent 3.
3. It is not in dispute that one Mr. Thimma Bovi was granted 2 acres of land in Sy. No. 57 situated at Nagadevanahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, on 10-8-1953. It is also not in dispute that the original grantee sold the above said property on 23-1-1969 under a registered sale deed but violating the conditions of the grant. However, second transaction also took place on 2-12-1980.
4. Subsequent to coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, the legal representatives of the original grantee approached the concerned authority by filing a declaration that the land should resume back to them by virtue of the above said enactment and also on account of violation of conditions of grant.
5. The Assistant Commissioner issuing notices to the respondents who were purchasers pertaining to 1969 transaction proceeded with the matter, holding that the land should resume back to the legal representatives of original grantee. He placed reliance on several judgments of this Court including the case in V. Muniswamy v. Deputy Commissioner, Kolar and Ors. : 1993(3) Kar. L.J. 346 (DB) : ILR 1993 Kar. 2108 (DB). Admittedly, the subsequent purchasers of the property both under the first and second sale deed who were parties before the Assistant Commissioner did not challenge the said order before the Appellate Authority. The present appellants who are the purchasers from legal representatives of C.V. Raman and others challenged the said order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30-8-1999 in the year 2007 contending that, before the learned Assistant Commissioner, they did not have an opportunity of being heard.
6. It is pertinent to mention that the present appellants are claiming interest in the property only by virtue of the sale deed dated 16-6-2003 which is executed much later than the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30-8-1999. Whatever right, title and interest that was held by sellers/vendors of the property i.e., legal representatives of C.V. Raman could only be transferred to the present appellants. Therefore, they cannot acquire better title, right or interest than that of the earlier purchasers who lost their title before the Assistant Commissioner. In all probability, learned Single Judge missed to notice that these two appellants have purchased the property from the legal representatives of C.V. Raman and others after the decision of the Assistant Commissioner reaching finality. Even in the absence of C.V. Raman, their legal representatives and others keeping quiet, these appellants, at this belated stage, cannot get any better title than their sellers. Unfortunately, the property cannot be retained by the legal representatives of original grantee as the same has been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for formation of a layout. Now, the question is only with regard to compensation. It is the case of the appellants that the legal representatives of Thimma Bovi were parties before the Land Acquisition Officer and they have already taken compensation amount. If at all the appellants have any right to claim/get damages or compensation, they only have to proceed against the respondents.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21-11-2008 passed in W.P. No. 11249 of 2007 upholding the orders of the authorities below.
In view of allowing of these writ appeals, there is no necessity to consider Misc. W. No. 12986 of 2009 filed for impleading BDA as respondent 5.