9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein by raising a loan of Rs. 1000/- to discharge his previous mortgage amount. 4) After the demise of Motappa and Ramachandra Reddy, B.K. Muniraju, the appellant herein and one M. Gopal paid the mortgaged amount of Rs. 1000/- to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and requested them to discharge the mortgage. Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 refused to discharge the mortgage on the ground that it was not a mortgage deed but an absolute sale deed. On coming into force of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in the year 1981, the appellant herein along with M.Gopal, who died during the pendency 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 pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is impugned in this appeal. 6) Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1-3. 7) Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, by taking us through the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 as well as the Rules under the Mysore Land Revenue Code, contended that the authorities as well as the High Court committed an error in rejecting the claim of the appellant inasmuch as it contraverts the said Act and the Rules. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of sub-sections (1) and (2) also apply 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. 10) Among the Rules, Rule 43 is relevant which speaks about the grant of occupancies. Sub-rule(1) of Rule 43 mandates that all the lands shall ordinarily be sold by public auction. Sub-rule (5) mandates Grant of occupancies to members of depressed classes. Sub-Rule (8) makes it clear that lands granted free or at upset price shall not be alienated but may be accepted as security for loans. The note appended to the above provisions makes it clear that depressed classes occurring in these rules will have to be constructed 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arkhast 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. As observed in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (supra), the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution cannot be tied down in a straight jacket formula or rigid rules. To put it clear though the power is there but the exercise is discretionary which will be governed solely by the dictates of judicial conscience enriched by judicial experience and practical wisdom of the judge. 16) In the light of the above principles, let us consider whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing 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 Rs. 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 publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
