D H KRISHNASA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANAGLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are considered together having regard to the common legal issues involved.

(2.) The facts in the first of these cases are as follows: It is claimed that land in survey No. 126 measuring about 2 acres 20 guntas at Nagarbhavi village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, was purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 24.4.1968, from one Akkayamma, wife of Doddamuniswamappa and her children. The same had been purchased by her husband, from one Gudda Thimmiah in the year 1959. Thimmiah had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 18.8.1958 from one Chikkamma, who in turn, had purchased a total extent of 4 acres of land in the said survey No. (sic), from Munimutha, the original grantee under the Grow More Food Scheme, under a sale deed dated 20.7.1955. It is claimed that the said grant was covered under Rule 43 J of the Karnataka Land Grant (Amendment) Rules, 1960. It was claimed by Respondents 3 to 6 that they are the children of the grandson of the original grantee aforesaid and sought to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KPTCL Act' for brevity), claiming that the alienations in respect of the land were null and void. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner and it was sought to be established that there was an order of confirmation of the grant dated 24.2.1955, followed by an Official Memorandum dated 3.11.1955 whereby it is clear that the original grantee was conferred an absolute right over the land, except with a condition of non-alienation for a period of ten years. This is also said to be reflected in an extract of the Register of Dharkasts, as to the title deed having been issued to the grantee. It is claimed that the petitioner's predecessors, and after them the petitioner, had exercised continuous possession over the land. It is therefore, claimed that it is the settled legal position that the title of a transferee of the granted land has ceased to be voidable by reason of acquisition of a prescriptive right on account of long and continued adverse possession. The petitioner contends that the long undisturbed possession is amply evidenced by material on record. It is further contended that the lands in question have been acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA' for brevity) and even an award has been passed in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the said acquisition proceedings have been questioned by the legal representatives of the grantee before this Court in writ petitions in W.P. 47516-517/2002 and the same is pending consideration. It is contended that notwithstanding the above circumstances, respondents 3, 4 and 5 have proceeded to execute sale deeds in respect of parcels of the said land on the basis of forged and false documents. It is contended that insofar as the proceedings under the KPTCL Act is concerned, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner and have held that the transactions in respect of the land are violative of the relevant Rule prohibiting alienation. The Deputy Commissioner has further held that the respondents 3 to 6 are entitled for payment of compensation by the BDA. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) In WP 13960/2006, the facts are as follows : The petitioners claim to be absolute owners of land bearing survey No.66 of Lokasara village in Mandya District. The petitioners claim that the said land has fallen to their share under a registered partition deed dated 7.4.1959. It is claimed that the said land was originally granted to one Guli Dasaiah as on 2.10.1941. The grantee had, in turn, sold the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.5.1950 in favour of one M.C.Seshadri, who in turn had sold it to Thimmegowda. The petitioners had acquired the same at the partition between Thimmegowda and his brothers. The respondents had initiated proceedings under the KPTCL Act. The proceedings having been allowed and which is confirmed in appeal, the petitioners are before this Court. It is contended that the grant was not a free grant and was actually made for an upset price, which was equal to the market price. It is therefore, contended that in the absence of a categorical finding in this regard, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. It is also contended that the petitioners having taken a plea that notwithstanding the fact that the land being treated as granted land under the Act, the petitioners had perfected their title by prescription. It is contended that this aspect of the matter has been glossed over and is not addressed by the competent authorities.