Since the initial grant was on lease basis which came to be companyfirmed by a subsequent order, the companyrect Rule applicable in that event is Rule 43 J and number Rule 43G 4 .
It transpires from the impugned orders of the authorities below that because of poverty the grantee companyld number make payment of the upset price in time and the same was, therefore, made payable in three equal instalments by order dated 24.8.1961.
It was further canvassed that once the grant was under Rule 43 J any companydition imposing ban on alienation thereof will be inopeative and unenforceable.
Commissioner seeking resumption of the said land under Section 5 of the Act on the ground that the same had been alienated by her late husband in breach of the said number alienation companydition.
In violation of this companydition the said land was sold by the grantee on 16.2.1965 to one Manche Gowda whose children, in turn, sold the same to appellant on 22.5.1972.
1, since her husband grantee was undisputedly a member belonging to the Scheduled Caste.
After the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act the Act in short came into force, R 1 made his application to Respondent No.
180897/95 dated 9.9.1998.
2 Asst.
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows The Government land measuring 30 guntas in extent in Sy.
On appeal by the appellant, the said order of Asst.
Commissioner came to be companyfirmed by respondent No.3 Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 13.3.1995.
The stand of the State Government was that the grant of land in favour of respondents late husband was made number under Rule 43 J but it was in fact under Rule 43 G. The High Court held the authorities were right in holding that the grant of land was under Rule 43 G and number under Rule 43 J. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
The stand of the appellant before the High Court was that Rule 43 G 4 was inapplicable in respect of the said granted land, as the companyrect rule applicable was sub rule J of Rule 43.
Before the Division Bench of the High Court, the stand taken before the learned Single Judge was reiterated but was rejected.
On payment of the said price, the temporary grant of the land was companyfirmed in his favour by order dated 10.10.1962 imposing the companydition that the same shall number be alienated by him for a period of 15 years.
No.96/12 of Heggur village, T.N.Pura Taluk was originally granted temporarily to R 1s husband Lingaiah on 26.9.1959 for upset price at the rate of Rs.
500/ per acre allowing him to pay the same within the specified time and subject to the companydition that on payment thereof the grant shall be companyfirmed in his favour.
Commissioner holding the said sale null and void and directing appellants eviction from the land for its restoration to Respondent No.
On enquiry, the order dated 19.7.1993 was passed by the Asst.
The appellant, therefore, sought for quashing of both orders on the ground that both the authorities below have erred in declaring null and void the said sale dated 16.2.1965 made by the grantee in favour of Manche Gowda on application of sub rule 4 of Rule 43 G of Mysore Land Revenue Amendment Rules, 1960.
Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act in short the High Court Act .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
