One Rangaswamy claiming to be the son of grantee Rangappa and one Sanna Karriyamma claiming to be the legal representative of Nagappa filed application for declaration that the sale was null and void and restoration of possession from the purchaser before the Assistant Commissioner Chitradurga Sub Division.
The said Budappa sold three acres of land to one Thippreeranna by registered sale deed dated 3.2.1965 and remaining five acres of Nagappa were acquired by the vendee in the Court auction on 15.8.1966.
According to the appellants, the said Nagappa and Rangappa formed a joint family with one Budappa and in a partition, out of eight acres of joint family lands, five acres were given to Nagappa and three acres were given to Budappa.
Aforesaid Thippreeranna sold eight acres of land under the registered sale deed dated 23.2.1981 in favour of Devraj and the appellants herein are his legal heirs.
The said Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner holding that in these cases grant has been made during 1957 under the Land Revenue Code and the right of possession in respect of the grantee is limited.
The Karnataka Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1979 in short the Act came into force with effect from 1.1.1979.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Eight acres of land in Survey No.59 were granted to two persons namely Rangappa and Nagappa sons of Kariyappa.
Legal representatives of the grantee filed appeal under Section 5A of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner.
As numbered above, the same was dismissed by the impugned order.
It was numbericed that there was a companydition number to alienate the land in question for a period of 10 years.
Challenge in the appeals was to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.
In these cases the alienation took place much before companypletion of the ten years period.
Since the land was alienated during the number alienable period, the land vested with the Government.
The matter was carried in writ appeal.
