H.N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, for calling for the records pertaining to ads/ptl/cr/7/94-95 disposed by order dated 23-6-1997, pertaining to the court of the assistant commissioner, Mangalore sub-division, Mangalore and for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-6-1997, in that case, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-D to this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case will per se reveal that this ease has been an attempt to play fraud on the court by filing a document which prima facie appears to be a forged document and prima facie appears to have been numbered ante-dated. according to the petitioners case, respondent 1, agreed and compromised with the petitioner on 27-5-1970, that the land measuring 20 cents of Sy. Nos. 9/2-a and 15-b, was pending for Darkhast in the proceedings and that out of 20 cents, the 1st respondent agreed to part with the petitioner 10 cents for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,100/- and on the date of agreement, 1st respondent received a sum of Rs. 600/- as advance amount and agreed to sell 0.10 cents of the land after darkast order. Ever since the execution of the said agreement, petitioners case is that, the petitioner as an encroacher is in possession of the land in dispute and made improvements on the land in question, a copy of which agreement has been annexed as Annexure-A to this writ petition. It appears that agreement was entered into on a stamp paper of Rs. 3/ -. Petitioners case further is that this agreement had been entered into more than 10 years prior to the land being granted to respondent 1, in this writ petition.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to petitioners case, vide order No. Ttr/19/77-78, dated 30-12-1980, that land was granted to the 1st respondent. That the Tahsildar imposed the penalty of Rs. 4. 15 ps. , vide his notice dated 16-10-1980 and the said land was granted under the unauthorised landless occupants of encroached land. The petitioner has annexed the copies of the giant order and penalty receipt as annexures-b and c. The petitioners case is that 3rd respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the Provisions of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 and the 3rd respondent, that is, the assistant commissioner, issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner appeared before the authority through the Advocate and filed detailed arguments and objections. Before the 3rd respondent, case was that the petitioner had already been in possession of the land in question since 1970, that is, prior to the date of alleged grant and 1st respondent admitted possession of the petitioner. The petitioners further case before the 3rd respondent was that on the date of transfer of the land in question, the 1st respondent was not the grantee thereof as the land in question had not been granted land, hence Section 4 (1) of the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978, for short, act 1978, does not apply to the present case, but the assistant commissioner, that is, 3rd respondent did not accept the plea of the petitioner and held the transfer of the land in question to be null and void and further ordered that the possession of the land be taken. The assistant commissioner has only ordered for resumption of the granted land by the government in its favour, and not for restoration of the land in favour of the grantee. No doubt, petitioner has not filed any appeal from the order of the assistant commissioner, but the petitioner has come up before this court by filing this petition along with the agreement, that is copy of the agreement, that copy of the agreement is annexure-a, to this writ petition. It had been contended before me by the petitioners counsel that in this case, the agreement to transfer the land had been entered long before enforcement of act 2 of 1979. He contended that act 2 of 1979, that is the Karnataka scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, did come into operation on 1st of January, 1979. By the agreement to transfer the land, the possession of the land had been handed over to the petitioner long before coming into force of the, so, there was no question of either any breach of the condition or application of Section 4 or 5 of the Act, 1979.

( 4 ) AS mentioned earlier, it smells something full of pollution and something having tendency to pollute the judicial atmosphere as well as the facts of the case reveal to bombshell and frustrate the building of the scheme and purpose of act 2 of 1979, or an attempt to completely make the Provisions of act 2 of 1979, ineffective and requires to be curbed with strong hand. Petitioners counsel failed to explain how the petitioner and respondent 1, could imagine or how did they come to know in 1970, that Sy. Nos. 9/2-a and 15-b, would be allotted or would be granted to respondent 1, the grantee and particularly, when the application for grant appears to have been made only in 1977-78, as per pleadings of the petitioner. The order granting the land in favour of the respondent 1, was passed by tahsildar in ttr/19/77-78, vide order dated 30-12-1980, which indicates that application for Darkhast would have been made in 1977 and grant was made on December 30th, 1980, while the agreement for sale of this land is dated 27th may, 1970. Penalty was paid by respondent 1, which had been imposed by the tahsildar in pursuance of his notice dated 16-10-1980. This further reveals that penalty was realised from the grantee and not from the petitioner. It means that possession of land at the most be said to be in illegal possession of the grantee in 1977.

( 5 ) ANYWAY, these facts definitely reveal that when application had not been given in 1970, agreement is alleged to have been entered on 27-5-1970, and the number of the land allotted is also mentioned in the agreement. These facts and the circumstances per se reveal that agreement would have been entered after the grant of the land in favour of respondent 1, antedating the document. On the basis of antedated document, the petitioner-transferee under agreement of sale had filed objections, the authorities did not act upon that agreement and the assistant commissioner ordered resumption of the land and its possession and held firstly that when there is a bar against alienation and Section 4 declares that transfer made in breach of conditions prohibiting alienation as well as in breach of prohibition of sub-section (2) of Section 4, shall be null and void. Petitioners counsel admits that the grantee is a scheduled caste, the land granted is free of upset price, then law had to prevail thereunder that bar against alienation will operate for 15 years from the date of grant and delivery of possession. The grantee had got the possession of the land. Even if he, respondent 1, would have agreed to transfer the land without necessary permission to transfer it or he would have attempted to transfer the land without obtaining permission of the state government, the transfer would have been void and therefore, such an agreement which appears to have been intended to frustrate the Provisions of Section 4 of the Act, it could be said to be void under Section 23 of the Contract Act and if such an agreement was void and any person is in possession thereof, the government being the owner of the land was entitled for resumption therefore, and there was nothing wrong, if resumption order had been passed by the assistant commissioner and order Annexure-D appears to be perfectly valid.

( 6 ) THIS writ petition has got no merits and it, in my opinion should be dismissed with a note of caution to the members of the bar and the counsel of the petitioner as well, that in future, the counsels should be very cautious in drafting, filing the petitions, affidavit etc. And see that the parties do not file writ petitions etc. With purged and forged documents, otherwise, they may have to face the serious consequences. Instead, this petition appears to be an attempt of the petitioner to procure some order from the court on the basis of an agreement which prima facie appears to be an ante-dated document prepared after that date and it prima facie shows that a false document has been filed with false allegations, because if petitioner would have been in possession, penalty would have been realised from him, the allegations in the petition that the petitioner had been in possession and the date of grant also appears to be false. Filing a false affidavit and filing forged document, as per law laid down by the Supreme Court is nothing but an act illegal, interfering with the proper administration of Justice and it prima facie makes out a case for contempt.

( 7 ) IN this view of the matter, I think this court should take necessary steps and issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondent 1, to show-cause why this court should not take action for contempt and punish them for having committed contempt of this court. Hence, notice under article 215 of the Constitution of India, is being issued by this court to petitioner and the petitioner is also required to show and explain why he has made the false statement that he has been in possession of the land in dispute from 1970, i.e., prior to its grant in favour of grantee made on 30-12-1980, which amounts to contempt of court and has produced a forged document purporting to be dated 27-5-1970 (i.e., antedated document annexure-a to this writ petition). 7-A. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. Let the notice be issued to the petitioner and respondent 1, to show-cause why they should not be subjected to proceeding for contempt of court and be punished for filing the false affidavits and forged and antedated documents. A copy of this order shall be annexed with the copy of the notices to the parties, that is, the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Let a copy of this notice be served on the learned government Advocate for information, who may be required to assist the court in further proceeding in contempt of court case.

( 8 ) LET this case be listed as contempt case no. . . . . . . of 1997, in the matter of writ petition nos. 21 and 776 of 1997, as miscellaneous case and which shall be listed before this court after notices under article 215, as ordered are served. Let copy of this order be provided to government Advocate as well. Let parties appear on October 24th, 1997. Counter-affidavit may be filed by or before 24th of October, 1997, and the parties shall appear before this court on 24th October 1997, positively.

( 9 ) SMT. Bharathi Nagesh, learned government Advocate is allowed to file memo of appearance.