AVVAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first and the third respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short "PTCL Act" ) was enacted to protect the lands granted by the Government to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State. This is a classic case which shows how an effort was made to defeat the very object of enacting the PTCL Act, which is a welfare legislation, by a consent decree from the Civil Court.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The husband of the fourth respondent, who admittedly belonged to Scheduled Caste was granted a Government land measuring 4 acres 75 cents out of survey No.2/3A2 in Navooru village Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The appellant in W.A.No.2571/2014 filed a suit on 21st July 1998 against the fourth respondent's husband for a declaration that he has perfected the title over the land granted to the fourth respondent's husband by adverse possession. On 30th July 1998, a memo was purportedly filed by the husband of the fourth respondent submitting to a decree and that is how within 8 days from the date of filing of the suit, on 30th July 1998, the Civil Court granted a decree of declaration that the land granted to the husband of the fourth respondent, has been in continuous possession of the appellant in W.A.No.2571/2014 for more than statutory period and therefore, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The appellant in W.A.No.2521/2014 purchased 01 acre of land granted to the husband of the fourth respondent by a Sale Deed dated 24th May 1999 from the appellant in W.A. No.2571 of 2014. On 23rd February 2001, the Tahsildar purported to grant 'no objection' to the appellant in W.A.No.2571/2014 to dispose of the land granted to the fourth respondent's husband. In these appeals, we are concerned with the area of one acre claimed by the appellant in W.A.No.2521/2014 on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 24th May 1999. The said land is hereinafter referred to as "the subject land."

(3.) Within seven years from the execution of the Sale Deed, on 24th January 2006, the fourth respondent applied to the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner for resumption of the subject land by invoking Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The second respondent disposed of the application by directing the fourth respondent to approach the Civil Court. In the appeal preferred by the fourth respondent, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order of remand on 6th April 2009. After remand, by an order dated 15th January 2010, the second respondent allowed the application and directed restoration of possession. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants in both the writ appeals preferred an appeal to the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2010. Only the appellant in W.A.No.2521/2014 preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition observed that the subject land was granted to the fourth respondent's husband being a member of the Scheduled Caste laced with a condition of non-alienation and the transfer of the land in violation of Section 4 of PTCL Act, must lead to resumption and restitution. The learned Single Judge also held that the lawyer's ingenuity of obtaining a decree of the Civil Court is covered by mischief sought to be prevented by the provisions of Section 4 of PTCL Act.