K. CHIKKALINGAIAH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA — 1989 DIGILAW 290 (KAR)

BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) ARGUMENTS were heard at length by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and the following order is passed. ( 2 ) IN the year 1956-57, land to the extent of 2 acres was granted to the original grantee. From the original grantee, one K. Chikkalingaiah purchased one acre and 27 guntas of land and thereafter he sold 1 acre to basavegowda and 13 guntas of land in favour of Lingaiah. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has retained only 14 guntas of land. ( 3 ) CONSIDERING the fact that the grant took place in the year 1956-57, as established by the Saguvali Chit Register and sale deeds, the copies of which have been produced before the Assistant Commissioner passed an order holding that alienation was null and void, for violation of the terms of the grant in as much as the land had been alienated before the expiry of 10 years from the date of grant. The land was granted in 1956-57 and saguvali Chit issued on 29-1-1957 and the alienation took place in the year 1964. Obviously land was alienated by the original grantee before the expiry of 10 years. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner ordered eviction so as to restore the land to the original grantee and the said order was challenged by Chikkalingaiah and Basavegowda by separate appeals. The Appellate authority rejected the appeals and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner stands committed to his contention that he purchased only 1 acre and 27 guntas out of two acres of land from original grantee. The affidavits filed by both k. Chikkalingaiah and Basavegowda before the Deputy Commissioner confirm the fact that the lands admittedly were alienated in the year 1964. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that without looking into the original records, such as Saguvali Chit, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy commissioner have speculated on the basis of the copies of the said documents and it would be unsafe to rely on such documents. However, since the affidavit filed by K. Chikkalingaiah and Basavegowda are staring in the face, there is no escape for the petitioner from the factual position that the provisions of the Act apply to the facts of the case. However, since the affidavit filed by K. Chikkalingaiah and Basavegowda are staring in the face, there is no escape for the petitioner from the factual position that the provisions of the Act apply to the facts of the case. The petitioner has no other alternative than to come to settlement with realities. In the above circumstance, the only point for consideration is, whether the impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner call for any interference? ( 5 ) THE fact that the granted land was alienated by two separate sale deeds executed on 30-4-1964 and 6-6-1964 in favour of K. Chikkalingaiah and Lingaiah to the extent ot" 1 acre and 13 guntas respectively is established. That the land was granted originally to the original grantee during the year 1956-57 also is substantiated. That the rules provide for prohibition of alienation for a period of 10 years from the date of the grant of the land during the year 1956-57 and that the original grant came into existence also is beyond the pale of controversy. In these circumstances it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the orders of both the assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are ill-founded. On the other hand i am of the opinion that both the orders deserve to be accepted and confirmed and more so the order of the Assistant Commissioner which is unusual being an order which has traversed the facts, and evidence before the findings are reached. Having come across a number of faulty orders of Assistant commissioners in the course of the enforcement of the Act, the order of the Assistant commissioner in question springs a pleasant surprise. I, therefore, confirm the orders of both the Assistant Commissioner and deputy Commissioner. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is therefore dismissed. ( 6 ) IT is made dear that the petitioner, according to his own statement has retained only an extent of 14 guntas of land in Sy. No. 90 of Yaladahalli Village, C. A. Kere Hobli, maddur Taluk. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is therefore dismissed. ( 6 ) IT is made dear that the petitioner, according to his own statement has retained only an extent of 14 guntas of land in Sy. No. 90 of Yaladahalli Village, C. A. Kere Hobli, maddur Taluk. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been in possession of only 14 guntas of land ever since he purchased lands from the original grantee and that the land is brought into wet cultivation, liberty is given to the petitioner in W. P. 10835/88 to remove the standing crops raised if any by the petitioner before the end of March, 1990. No further extension of time will be granted. It is hereby directed that the Assistant commissioner shall ensure the drawing up of a mahazar to record the improvements made, if any, by the petitioner on the land in question, after due notice to the petitioner and furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner expeditiously. --- *** --- .