GOVINDAMM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.05.2007 passed by third respondent and the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexures A and B, respectively, whereby the authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ' the PTCL Act ) on the ground that the records are not available.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.6 measuring 2 acres situated at Singrahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devenahalli Taluk was originally granted in favour of the petitioner s husband under the Land Grant Rules on 14.04.1977 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The petitioner s husband sold 1 acre of land to one Tatagatti Munishamappa under a registered sale deed dated 26.03.1994 and another 1 acre to the father of the fourth respondent by a registered sale deed dated 02.06.1997. The fourth respondent s father purchased 1 acre of land from said Tatagatti Munishamappa vide registered sale deed dated 29.05.1997. Thereafter, in the year 2003, petitioner filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of land in her favour. The Assistant Commissioner, by exercising powers under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act, by order dated 18.05.2007 has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the records are not available. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 26.04.2011 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Sri H.N.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in dispute was originally granted in favour of the husband of the petitioner under Darkhast Rules on 14.04.1977. He further submits that it is very clear that the land in dispute is a granted land. Secondly, he submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, i.e., Budaga Jangama. In support of his claim he has produced the Caste Certificate issued by the revenue authorities as per Annexure-C produced along with the rejoinder. He further submits that the fourth respondent has not disputed the same before the authorities. Thirdly, he contended that the land was alienated contrary to the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Without considering all these aspects the authorities have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.