S BASAVARAJAPPA Vs. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Misc.W.No. 3937/2011 filed for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is allowed. The admitted facts are that the land in question was granted to the father of the respondent No. 3, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community, in 1955-56. The land was purchased by the appellant on 20/11/1987. On 06/12/2006, an application was preferred by the contesting respondent - Sri Ramanaik, praying for the restoration of the possession of the land. The application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Davanagere, on 24/10/2007, ordering that the sale deed pertaining to the disputed land was declared as null and void, as per the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (in short "PTCL Act"). The Assistant Commissioner further directed that the disputed land be resumed to Government under Section 5(1)(a) of PTCL Act and as per Section 5(1)(b) of PTCL Act, the land be restored "in favour of grantee". The matter was carried in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Davangere, who by the order dated 05/02/2010, dismissed the appeal. The order takes note of the fact that a memo had been filed by the contesting respondent namely, Sri Ramanaik, praying that the appeal be allowed. However, the Deputy Commissioner, rightly noted the provision under Section 4(2) of PTCL Act and refused to act on the memo. After referring to Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of the PTCL Act, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal.

(2.) As we have already recorded, there is no dispute that the land was granted to a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste community. The PTCL Act, therefore, comes into play and since the same transaction took place after it came into force, by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act, since permission of the Government had not been obtained, the transaction was null and void. There is no error in these findings.

(3.) Section 5 of the Act reads as follows: