S.B.Majmudar, C.J. - (1.) In this writ appeal, the writ petitioner has submitted that the alienation of the disputed land in his favour made as early as 20th February, 1953 by the original grantee, who was a member of the Scheduled Caste, cannot be voided under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, for short the 'Act'. The transaction was declared null and void by the authorities and the possession of the land was ordered to be restored to original grantee-Appellant's vendor. He challenged that action unsuccessfully, before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26674/1992. That is how he has come by way of this appeal.
(2.) A few relevant facts are to be noted to appreciate the grievance made by the appellant for our consideration. An extent of 2 acres-and 3 guntas comprised in Sy.No. 81 of Doddiganahalli, was regranted to one Mudduga Bin Hanumanthuga in the year 1942-43. The said grantee had sold the aforesaid extent of land to the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 22nd February, 1953. The Karnataka Legislature enacted the aforesaid Act, which came into force from 1-1-1979. Section 4 of the said Act provided as under: "Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of the Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant, of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest to such land shall be conveyed nor be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. (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) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or order of a civil court or of any award or order of any other authority." The original vendor's son one Shri A.K. Hanumappa, initiated action before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the land in question. He submitted before the authority exercising powers under the Act that the transaction of sale in favour of the appellant had become null and void as per Section 4 (1) of the Act, as his father belonged to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the transaction entered into by his father in favour of the appellant would be hit by Section 4 of the Act. The authority exercising powers under Section 5 of the Act passed order on 22nd July, 1987, declaring the sale transaction effected in favour of the appellant as not valid. It may be noted that the aforesaid proceedings were initiated before the competent authority, under the Act, in November, 1983, Against the order of 1984, there was an appeal preferred by the appellant. The appellate authority by its Order dated 7-11- 1985 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. After remand, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner initiated action once again and gave notice to the parties. The Assistant Commissioner after giving opportunity to parties by his Order dated 22nd July, 1987 declared the sale transaction effected in favour of the appellant as invalid and directed resumption of the property. Appellant once again preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District. The appellate authority, dismissed the appeal on the 25th September, 1990, confirming the Order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 22nd July, 1987. Under these circumstances, the appellant came to this court by way of writ petition.
(3.) The contention of the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge and which is repeated before us is to the effect that as the transaction in favour of the appellant was entered into by the original grantee on 20th February, 1953, the appellant completed continuous period of adverse possession within 30 years from the date of the transaction i.e., by 20th February, 1983 his adverse possession became complete and he become the full owner of this property not liable to be subjected to proceedings under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Act. The action was initiated for the first time on the application of original vendor's son Shri A.K. Hanumappa in November, 1983 and by that time the appellant had already completed more than 30 years of adverse possession and consequently sale transaction could not be held to be void under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Act. He further submitted that though it was true that on 1-1-1979 when the Act came into force the appellant had not completed 30 years of adverse possession but only because the Act was enacted, without taking any action against him and destroying the continuance of his adverse possession, the running of adverse possession could not be intercepted and consequently running of 30 years got completed from the date of transaction and not prior to initiation of action under Section 5 read with Section 4 and therefore, curtain must drop on this case and the transaction becomes immune from the sweep of the Act. The learned counsel in support of this contention placed reliance on the following two decisions of the Supreme Court: (1) In Manche Gowda v State of Karnataka and Others, 1984(2) Kar. L.J. 1 (SC): ILR 1984(2) Kar. 1 and as later clarified by the same Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Sunkara Rajyalakshmi v State of Karnataka, ILR 1987(3) Kar. 2076 (SC). Relying on these decisions the learned counsel submitted that the concept of adverse possession by the transferees of such transactions has been recognised by the Supreme Court in connection with the present Act and if that is so, running of adverse possession would naturally not stop on 1-1-1979 when the Act was enacted and therefore 30 years period which should be counted for deciding the adverse possession of the transferee of any voidable transaction under the Act must be computed with reference to the date of initiation of the proceedings under Section 5 read with Section 4 of the Act and not prior thereto. The learned single Judge did not agree with this contention and in our view rightly so. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, put an end to the controversy raised before us.;