TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners, the State of Karnataka and others, has sought to challenge the correctness of the decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Lakshmana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (1981) 1 Kant L J 1, which has been followed by that High Court in the impugned judgments. As we are of the view that the judgment in Lakshmana Gowda's case deserves to be upheld, it is not necessary for us to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to fifteen times the amount of full assessment of the land. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the said Act was amended by the Karnataka Offices Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1978. After the said amendment the said Sub-section reads as follows : (3) The occupancy or the ryotwari patta of the land, as the case may be, regranted under Sub-section (1) shall not be transferable otherwise than by parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) of Section 5 of the Principal Act attracted to (a) a transfer of a Service Inam Land in contravention of unamended Sub-section (3) of that Section; or (b) a transfer of such land in contravention of amended Sub-section (3) of that section; or (c) both of them. The High Court has taken the view that omission to obtain the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner under original Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the interpretation placed by the Karnataka High Court that the only condition of sanction was the payment of an amount equal to fifteen times of full assessment of the land appears to be a just construction. That construction has stood for the last more than ten years and transactions must have been effected on the basis of the view of the law laid down by the Karnataka High Court. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
