MUNIEERAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 29.04.2011 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-G, wherein he has allowed the appeal filed by the purchasers under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'the PTCL Act').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy. No. 22 measuring 2 acres of Sulikunte Village, Varthur Village, Bangalore East Taluk was originally granted in favour of one Chikkeerappa and saguvali chit has been issued on 07.12.1954 with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 20 years. By violating the grant conditions, the original grantee sold the land in favour of one Balakrishna by a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1961. The said Balakrishna in turn sold the land in favour of one Chikkamuniyappa under a registered sale deed dated 08.07.1963 and the said Chikkamuniyappa in turn sold the land in favour of one M.J. Varghese on 05.04.2004. After purchasing the property Varghese formed the layout and sold the sites in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 40 herein. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1979. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act for resumption of the land in the year 2005. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 06.10.2006 allowed the application and resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein have filed an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 5-A of the PTCL Act and the Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.04.2011 has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the grantee has failed to prove that it is a granted land and he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) Sri B. Ramesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land in dispute has been originally granted in favour of father of the petitioners under Dharkasth Rules. The same is evident from the saguvali chit issued by the competent authority on 07.12.1954 vide Annexure-B with a condition of non-alienation for a period of 20 years. By violating the condition the father of the petitioners who is the original grantee has sold the land in favour of one Balakrishna by a sale deed dated 27.03.1961. The PTCL Act came into force on 01.01.1079. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2005 for resumption of land. The Assistant Commissioner has rightly resumed the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein have filed an appeal. The petitioners have furnished relevant materials to show that the land in dispute is a granted land and it has been sold by violating the conditions of the grant. The Deputy Commissioner, contrary to the materials available on record has allowed the appeal. Hence, he sought for allowing the petitions.