GANGA NAIKA S/O. GOPALA NAIKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petitions by persons, who claim interest in agricultural land to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land in Sy. No. 66/2 of G. Shankaranahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District, as past and present owners, as the 1st Petitioner who had claimed interest in the land initially by way of purchasing an extent of 4 acres in the said survey number under a sale deed dated 28.6.1970 having not enforced his right under the sale deed, but later claiming interest as a tenant under the 5th Respondent Sri. Hunya Naika S/o. Ganga Naik had obtained occupancy rights in the land to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLR Act') by making an application in Form No. 7 and having been granted occupancy rights as per order dated 16.07.1979 passed by the 4th Respondent the Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Arasikere, (copy produced as Annexure -A to the petition) and having in turn sold this land in favour of Petitioners 2 and 3 under sale deed 17.12.2008 purporting to be after the expiry of 15 years from the date of order of the Land Tribunal and the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners now claim ownership and to be in possession of the subject land, are all aggrieved by the adverse order that they have suffered before the 2nd Respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, Hassan, while functioning as an appellate authority under Section 5(A) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act') has while set aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner rejecting the request of the 5th Respondent - the original grantee to annul the sale transaction and resume the land and restore it to the original grantee, has allowed the appeal set aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner, declaring the transactions to be null and void and has directed resumption of the land and restitution to the 5th Respondent and it is aggrieved by this order, the present writ Petitions to quash the same.

(2.) APPEARING on behalf of the Petitioners, submission of Sri. N.R. Naik, Learned Counsel, is that the 1st Petitioner having claimed interest as a tenant under the 5th Respondent and the 4th Respondent - Land Tribunal found it to be factually so and having passed the order under the provisions of the KLR Act in terms of the order at Annexure -A, the provisions of the PTCL Act could not have been invoked by the statutory authority functioning under the PTCL Act for either disturbing the order passed by the Land Tribunal under the provisions of the KLR ACT nor for directing resumption of the land in favour of the State and for restitution of the subject land in favour of the 5th Respondent.

(3.) MR . R. Om Kumar, learned AGA, who had been furnished with an advance copy of the writ petition papers voluntarily taking notice of the matter and wants to not only clarify the correct legal position as it prevails in terms of provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the PTCL Act, but also points out that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of case cited supra to submit that the ratio of the MOHAMMED JAFFAR case is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.