LAKSHMIDEVAMMA Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 assails the validity of the order dated 04.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that one Yellamma submitted an application under the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Inams Abolition Act' for short) seeking occupancy rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.2 measuring 3 acres 11 guntas situated at Kothaganahalli, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk. The aforesaid application was allowed and occupancy rights were granted by an order dated 28.03.1965 and the aforesaid Yellamma was directed to be registered as holder of thoti service inam under Section 8 of the Inams Abolition Act. Thereafter, the aforesaid Yellamma, by registered sale deeds dated 22.06.1994 and 09.11.1998, sold lands measuring 1 acre and 1 acre 6 guntas respectively, to the appellant. Thereafter, the daughter of Yellamma namely Jayamma filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act' for short). The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dated 02.08.2004, set aside the sale and ordered restoration of the land in favour of respondent No.1. The aforesaid order was subject matter of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed by an order dated 04.04.2006. The orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the PTCL Act were challenged by the appellant in a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 04.12.2008, dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that since the land was granted to Yellamma under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act were not attracted to the fact situation of the case. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in violation of the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 18.02.2009 passed in W.A.No.1171/2008 (LAKSHMAMMA AND 2 OTHERS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS) and decision of another Division Bench in ' JAGADISH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS , 2013 ILR(Kar) 4091'. The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate.