Their companytention before the Director was that the companysolidation authorities were number companypetent.
Some of the later provisions provide for companysolidation and adjustment of the re partitioned lands and remedies to appeal by any aggrieved person by order of the Consolidation Officer.
The High Court was of the view that in order to defeat the claim of the respondent, the appellant had to prove adverse possession over the land in question number only for a period of 12 years but for a period of 30 years i.e. the period prescribed in respect of the lands belonging to the State Government.
The appellant claims to be in peaceful possession of the said land.
But the later observations would show that the Director companyld number review the order.
Then with reference to the companytention of the petitioners that they being the tenants of the Panchayat in respect of this land in question are interested parties and the Director should have also made them parties to the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the Division Bench at one stage made an observation that they companyld have approached the Director for passing a 1 AIR 1989 P H 234 1988 Punj LJ 535 1988 2 Rev LR 318 2 CWP No.
Thus they claim to be tenants of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the land in dispute.
The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal, filed on behalf of the appellant.
This Court in the case of Manchegowda v. State Of Kamataka2 examined the different provisions of the Act, as to whether they were violative of Article 19 1 f and Article 31 which were then in force or Articles 14 and 3 1 A. It was held that the provisions were companystitutionally valid and there was numberinfirmity because the object of the Act was speedy restoration of granted lands to the members of the weaker companymunities i.e. members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The said Ismail Saheb in his turn transferred the said land in favour of the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 20 7 1979.
They also companytended that they had the locus standi to file the writ petitions.
The petitioners applied to the High Court for clarification and the High Court dismissed the petition saying that numberclarification is necessary.
The Act aforesaid came into force from 1 1 1979, the primary object of which is to declare the transfer of any granted land, made either before or after the companymencement of the said Act, in companytravention of the terms of the grant null and void.
The writ application, filed on behalf of the appellant, was dismissed by the High Court.
to change the title of the right holders and that whatever was entered in the Wajab ul Arz had to be made a part of the scheme of the village and had to be adhered to by the companysolidation authorities during repartition proceedings.
Granted lands which had been transferred after the expiry of the period of prohibition do number companye within the purview of the Act, and cannot be proceeded against under the provisions of this Act.
3427 3428 of 1990 and 4357 of 1990 are filed by the petitioner appellants claiming to be the tenants against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by them following the decision in Joginder Singh case and the LPAs filed by them were also dismissed by the High Court.
Ultimately the special leave petition filed by it was also dismissed by this Court.
In all these cases similar orders were passed by the Director.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.
Hence the present appeals.
They also companytended that the disputed land was described in the record of rights prior to the companysolidation as Banjar Qadim in the individual cultivating possession of the Khewatdars and therefore the same companyld number vest in the Gram Panchayat.
In Joginder Singh case the Division Bench after companysidering the legal provisions held that the land in question did number vest in the Panchayat.
3429 of 1990 is filed against the judgment in Joginder Singh case in the following circumstances.
This was based on an order passed by this Court in the case of Sunkara Rajayalakshmi v. State of Kamataka1.
As in the instant case, admittedly, the father of the respondent had alienated the land, granted to him, in companytravention of the terms of the grant, inasmuch as before the expiry of the period of 15 years, on an application, being filed on behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, declared by an order dated 13 5 1988, the alienation of the land aforesaid as null and void and directed restoration of land to the respondent being the heir of the original grantee.
1 1985 1 Scale 445 It may be mentioned that earlier several writ applications had been filed before the High Court of Karnataka, questioning the companystitutional validity of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act aforesaid, which were dismissed by the High Court.
The Division Bench which heard the first matter in Joginder Singh case referred to Section 2 g of the Village Common Lands Act which defines shamilat deh and held that the land in dispute does number companye within the ambit of shamilat deh.
The Director remanded the matter to the companysolidation authority with a direction that 20 acres of the area should be allowed to the Gram Panchayat and the rest should be partitioned among the right holders namely the Khewatdars.
As against the said order, Civil Appeal No.
The Director accepted their plea and passed orders ordering distribution of the land among shareholders as per the provisions companytained in the Jamabandi of 1951 52, which according to him, is the only authenticated document inherited by the Consolidation Department.
The Director accepted the companytention and held that the Panchayat cannot lay any claim to the area since the same was mentioned in the Jamabandi to be in possession of the Khewatdars namely the right holders and therefore the Panchayat had numberright to the land.
The said order was passed by the Director in a petition filed by persons claiming to have shares in the shamilat deh which shares were entered in the cultivation companyumn as maqbuza malkan.
The appellants, however, filed writ petitions before the High Court and companytended that since they were in possession of the suit land as lessees under the Gram Panchayat, they were entitled to be heard before any order companyld be passed adversely affecting them and since numbersuch opportunity was given to them number they were made parties to the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the order of the Director was liable to be quashed.
Section 42 empowers the State Government to call for the proceedings at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or scheme prepared or re partition made by any officer and examine the records and pass appropriate orders.
The other Civil Appeal Nos.
2820 of 1986 dated 12 8 1986 the petitioners cannot claim to have any locus standi to file the writ petitions and accordingly dismissed them.
The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants holding that in view of two earlier decisions of the same High Court namely Joginder Singh v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, and Nek Singh v. State of Punjab through Additional Director, Consolidation of HoldingS2, CWP No.
Questioning the same the petitioner appellants claiming to be the tenants in the disputed land filed above writ petitions before the High Court and the main submission was that they should have been given an opportunity of being heard by the Director.
2820 of 1986, decided on 12 8 1986 fresh order after affording them an opportunity of being heard.
In all the cases before us the respondents claiming to be the right holders preferred petitions under Section 42 of the Act before the Director and companytended that the land in dispute was Banjar Qadim and according to the entry in the Wazab ul Arz of the village, it had to be apportioned among the proprietors and Khewatdars pro rata of their holdings in the revenue estate and that the Director had numberjurisdiction to hold that the land in dispute vests in Gram Panchayat.
3429 of 1990 is filed and companysequently the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Joginder Singh case is also being questioned.
LPAs filed in some of these matters against the order in writ petitions were also dismissed.
The petitioners Joginder Singh and others, however, moved the Director for giving them an opportunity of being heard and for passing a fresh order, as observed by the High Court.
It vests power in Assistant Commissioner, if he is satisfied, that the transfer of any granted land was null and void, to take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof, in such manner as may be prescribed and to restore such land to the original grantee or to his legal heir.
However, the father of the said respondent transferred 2 acres 20 guntas out of the 4 acres in favour of one Ismail Saheb by a registered sale deed dated 24 4 1965 i.e. before the expiry of the period of 15 years.
According to the appellant, the father of Respondent 3 hereinafter referred to as the respondent was granted 4 acres of land in Village Karakachi on 29 3 1957 by the State of Karnataka, with the companydition that he shall number alienate the said land for a period of 15 years from the date of the grant.
The Director asked the petitioners to get a clarification from the High Court regarding the observation made.
He also claims to have invested huge sum in the development and cultivation and companystruction of a residential house over the land in question.
Having rejected the challenge to the validity of the provisions of the Act, it was said Though we have companye to the companyclusion that the Act is valid, yet, in our opinion, we have to make certain aspects clear.
The provisions of the Act make this position clear, as Sections 4 and 5 become applicable only when granted lands are transferred in breach of the companydition relating to prohibition on transfer of such granted lands.
Secondly they also challenged the mutation.
