ASHWATHA REDDY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal assails the concurrent findings of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, as well as the learned Single Judge who has passed the impugned Order. Undeterred by these consistent views the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. The Assistant Commissioner Chikkaballapur sub-division in his Order dated 13.07.2001 has noted the contents of the Objections filed by the Appellant admitting that in respect of the lands measuring 02 acres 26 guntas in Survey No. 103 situated at Lakkepalli village, Muganahalli Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, a Grant was made to late Ramanna on 15.11.1943 under the "Grow More Food" scheme and most importantly, that after the prescribed period the land was re-granted to late Ramanna, who uncontrovertedly, belonged to the Scheduled Caste of Adi Dravida. Since the Mysore Land Revenue Code 1888 was applicable, the covenant in the Grant prohibited alienation in perpetuity, contrary to which late Ramanna had sold the land on 30.05.1962. It was in these circumstances that the Assistant Commissioner had concluded that the sale deserved to be declared as null and void as per Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called 'the PTCL Act' for short). The decision was carried in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner Kolar District, Kolar who in his Order dated 28.10.2005 noted that the land in question had been repossessed by the legal representatives of the original grantee i.e., Respondent No.3 Narasimhappa, and affirmed the finding that the original grantee late Ramanna belonged to a Scheduled Caste; and that the Grant attracted the condition of perpetual non-alienation, in violation of which the land was sold to the Appellant's predecessor in title.

(2.) IN Papaiah vs. State of Karnataka (1996) 10 SCC 533 five acres of land were allotted on 13.02.1940 under Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Revenue Code. The application for restoration of the land was filed after 45 years of the grant and after 28 years of the execution of the Sale Deed and their Lordships clarified the law thus -

(3.) .D.N.Venkatrayappa covers not only the doctrine of adverse possession but also how it has to be applied to the PTCL Act. Their Lordships observed that: