Thereafter, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition No.
The total extent of mortgaged land was 2 acres 29 guntas.
Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which was also dismissed.
809 of 2000 of the learned single Judge.
4 5 and Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, learned companynsel appearing for respondent Nos.
11821 of 1987 and the High Court allowed the said petition and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal.
On companying 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.
1000/ to discharge his previous mortgage amount.
1320 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
Later in 1956, Motappa mortgaged 1 acre of the said land to one Munichennamma.
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.
795 of 2002 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing the appeal of the appellant companyfirming the order dated 07.12.2001 in Writ Petition No.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.
72 of Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was allotted to the grand father of the appellant, namely, Motappa, who belongs to the Bhovi Community under the Mysore Land Grant Rules.
The Deputy Commissioner also held that the Saguvali chit issued in Form No.1 indicates that the land was allotted to Motappa in public auction at an upset price of Rs.408.12.
Based on the said direction of the High Court, the Assistant Commissioner heard the matter afresh.
Subsequently in 1959, he mortgaged another portion of the land in favour of one Ramachandra Reddy, who was the father of respondent Nos.
21914 OF 2004 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
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 number the provisions of the Act are attracted to the facts of the case and whether the prohibition or alienation has been violated by the grantee.
The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings on the ground that the alienation is after the expiry period of ten years of number alienation clause and hence the sale transaction is number in violation of the companydition governing grant and, therefore, it does number attract the provisions of Section 4 1 of the Act.
Brief facts The land in question bearing Survey No.
809 of 2000 before the High Court.
4 5 herein by raising a loan of Rs.
4 5 and requested them to discharge the mortgage.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.07.2004 in Writ Appeal No.
4 5 refused to discharge the mortgage on the ground that it was number a mortgage deed but an absolute sale deed.
Respondent Nos.
