ANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the third respondent, the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the second respondent and the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the third respondent, whereby the authority has restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee by exercising the power 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').

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing Sy. No. (Old No. 26) new No. 120 measuring 2 acres situated at Basavapattana Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk was originally granted in favour of Guddigangappa under the Land Grant Rules and saguvali chit came to be issued on 30.11.1964. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold one acre of land in favour of one Muninanjappa, who is the father of the petitioners in W.P. No. 40687/2019, by a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1974 and another one acre in favour of one Narasimhaiah @ Narasimhappa under a registered sale deed dated 15.07.1977. 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 restoration of the land on 29.10.2007. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 12.09.2011 allowed the application and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners in W.P. No. 40687/2019 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 02.06.2014 has dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 26.10.2018 directed the Tahasildar to restore the land in favour of the original grantee. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the land in question was originally granted in favour of Guddigangappa by the Government and saguvali chit has been issued on 30.11.1964. The legal representatives of the original grantee have sold one acre each in favour of father of the petitioners in both the petitions on 19.08.1974 and 15.07.1977. The legal representatives of the original grantee have filed an application for restoration of the land on 29.10.2007, after a lapse of 33 years. There is an inordinate delay in filing the application. The application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee itself is not maintainable. Without considering this aspect of the matter both the authorities, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have allowed the application filed by the legal representatives of the original grantee and Tahasildar was also directed to restore the said land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee. In support of their case, they have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 47665/2019 submitted that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has ve passed the impugned orders without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, they sought for allowing the writ petition.