CASE BRIEF: KALIYAMMA & ORS VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT & ORS.
Deciding authority: Supreme Court of India.
Case No : Appeal ( civil) 7875- 7876 of 2001.
Bench : Justice Dr. P.Arijith pasayat, Justice P. Sathasivam.
Date of Judgement: 03/01/2008.
FACTS:
Eight acres of land in survey no.59 was granted to two, Rangappa and Nagappa sons of Kariyappa. the above said Rangappa and Kariappa formed a joint family with Buddapa and in partition out of 8 acres 5 acres were given to Nagappa and three acres to Buddapa. The later sold his three acres to Thipreeranna by a sale deed registered on 3.2.1965 and the Nagappa land was acquired by the vendee in court auction on 15.8.1966. The whole eight acres were sold by a sale deed dated 23.2.1981 to Devaraj, whose legal heirs are appellant herein. One Rangaswamy, son of Rangappa and Kalyamma, legal heir of Nagappa filed a application of declaration before the Assistant Commissioner Chitradurga Sub Division to declare the sale null and void and restore possession pertaining to the Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979. The Assistant Commissioner held that the allotement comes under Form-I which is for general category, the order was reversed by an appeal made under S. 5 A of the Act by the deputy Commissioner and held that the grant was made during 1957 under the Land Revenue Code and a condition not to alienate for a period of 10 years but the grant took place before the non- alienable period and also held that the time period to claim title by adverse possession is 30 years. The matter was carried by a writ appeal and it was dismissed by the impugned order.
JUDGEMENT:
From the arguments of the learned counsel of the appellant and the respondent, it was held that the appellant was not the first purchaser and the non- alienable period for both Form 1 and Form2 is same, considering the above position the bench quoted that there is no merits in these appeal and also cited a case of similar issue Guntiah and ors vs Hambamma and Ors[ 2005 (6) SCC 288]. In para 8, it was observed by the by the Full bench of Karnataka High Court that the conditions restricting alienation for the grant made under Rule 43-J is null and void. The view has been taken for reason that the conditions restricting alienation are given only under Rule 43-G. Therefore the authorities were not empowered to impose such conditions. Based on the position the bench dismissed the appeal.
DECISION:
In the view what has been stated the Court came to an inevitable conclusion to dismiss the appeal due to lack of merit and passed no orders as to the costs.
BY: A. SRI RAMYA, V year BA.BL(HONS), School Of Excellence In Law.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS