SRI NARASIMHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkaballapur District, Chikkaballapur, thereby setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur Sub -Division, Chikkaballapur and ordering that in the light of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others - : 2003(1) KCCR 110, provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the Act') are not applicable to the land in question and therefore, question of resuming and restoring of the same under the provisions of the Act would not arise.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , land bearing Sy. No. 44 measuring 1 acre 7 guntas situated at Narammanahalli Village of Chikkaballapur Taluk was cultivated by the petitioner as a tenant. The land stood vested with the State Government as on 01.03.1974 in terms of the provisions contained under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. On an application filed by the petitioner in Form No. 7 claiming grant of occupancy rights, Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights holding that petitioner was cultivating the land as tenant as on the appointed date, that is, 01.03.1974. This is evident from the occupancy certificate issued vide Annexure -B.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Question whether the land in respect whereof occupancy rights have been granted in favour of a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act can be construed as granted land as defined under Section 3(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, wherever the tenant belonged to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe and was amenable to the jurisdiction and operation of the PTCL Act fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jaffar and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others. Examining the said issue, a Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment referred to supra has held that in respect of lands for which occupancy rights are conferred under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act would not be applicable as, such lands would not fall within the ambit of granted land as defined under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. In the light of this decision, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with. As the land in the instant case does not fall within the definition of the term 'granted land', provisions of the Act are not applicable.