TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land was sold on 04.03.1948 in a public auction and Motappa purchased the same for a price of ₹ 408.12. In addition to the recitals, the darkhast register extract produced as Annexure C before the High Court also shows that the land in question was sold for a price . Form I also indicates that the land in question was purchased and what was paid by the purchaser under the said document was the purchase price. In the light of the principles mentioned above and the terms and conditions in the recital clearly show that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price. Merely because the document has been styled or titled as Certificate of Grant , it cannot be construed that the land was a granted land attracting the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner, the authorized authorities under the Act and Rules, on verification of the contents of the document coupled with Revenue extract rightly concluded that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price even in the year 1948. We have referred to the recitals in the document produced before the High Court which though titled as certificate of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of writ appeal, and also a legal heir of deceased Motappa filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of the sale deed and restoration of the land under the provisions of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings on the ground that the alienation is after the expiry period of ten years of non-alienation clause and hence the sale transaction is not in violation of the condition governing grant and, therefore, it does not attract the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11821 of 1987 and the High Court allowed the said petition and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. The High Court, in its order, directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine the original Saguvali chit besides the original records relating to grant proceedings to the land in question and then decide whether or not the provisions of the Act are attracted to the facts of the case and whether the prohibition or alienation has been violated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He further submitted that in view of the earlier order of the High Court directing the Assistant Commissioner to verify the original record and arrive a fresh conclusion, the contrary decision by the said officer is liable to be interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 4 5, submitted that in view of the specific factual finding by both the authorities namely, that Motappa purchased the land in question by offering price in a public auction and it was not a granted land , and the same was duly considered and affirmed by the High Court, there is no valid ground for interference. 8) We have perused all the relevant materials, Annexures and considered the rival contentions. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the land in question was granted land or purchased for a price by Motappa? If it is found that the subject matter of a land was not a granted land , it does not attract the vice of Section 4 of the Act. 9) The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 shows that the non-aliena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as equivalent to the words Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes occurring in the Constitution of India. 11) From the materials, now we have to see whether the land purchased by Motappa was a granted land as claimed by the appellant herein and one M. Gopal or purchased by public auction for a price as claimed by contesting respondents 4 5 herein? In order to understand whether the land in question was a granted land or land purchased for a price at a public auction , it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to look into the relevant records and decide the same. In view of the controversy in question, we verified the document and the orders passed by the Assistant and the Deputy Commissioner and the factual findings recorded by them. It reveals that the land in question was granted in 1948 and the Certificate of Grant/Saguvali Chit which was filed as Annexure R-1 before the High Court (Annexure P-3 before us) shows that the same was sold in public auction for a price. In other words, the land was purchased by Motappa at a public auction and it was not a granted land within the meaning of Rule 43(8) of the Rules. It was contended that the finding recorded by both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorized authorities under the Act and Rules, on verification of the contents of the document coupled with Revenue extract rightly concluded that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction for a price even in the year 1948. 14) Now let us consider the jurisdiction of the High Court for interference in a factual decision arrived at by the authorities. It is relevant to point out that the appellant and Mr. Gopal filed Writ Petition No. 809 of 2000 before the High Court praying to quash the orders dated 11.03.1999 and 20.09.1999 issued by the Assistant and Deputy Commissioner respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, by issuance of Certiorari. It is settled law that a writ of Certiorari can only be issued in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals or authorities in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave mis-carriage of justice. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the writ petition. We have already referred to the recitals in the document produced before the High Court which though titled as certificate of grant/Saguvali chit, various terms and conditions make it clear that the land was purchased by Motappa in a public auction on payment of a price for ₹ 408.12. In addition, the two authorities as well as the High Court adverted to the revenue extract and concluded that it was not a granted land and it was purchased in a public auction on payment of a price. In the light of the factual conclusion, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly refused to quash the orders of the said authorities and dismissed the writ petition. If the factual finding that the subject-matter of the land was a granted land undoubtedly it attracts bar under Section 4 of the Act and follow the conditions as stated in Rule 43 (1) (5) and (8). 17) In the light of the above conclusion, though Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel heavily relied on the decisions of this Court, namely, Manchegowda and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 301, Siddegowda vs. Assistant Commissioner and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 675, Guntaiah and Others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
