B.SHIVALINGAIAH Vs. NANJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra court appeal has been filed challenging the order dtd. 25/2/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.12748/2011.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

(3.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal are, land bearing Sy. No.21 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was granted on temporary lease in favour of the father of the appellant herein under the Grow More Food Scheme on 18/2/1946 and a temporary saguvali chit was issued to him. On 30/7/1966, 35 guntas of land in Sy. No.21 was sold by the appellant's father and the remaining 10 guntas of land was sold by him under a registered sale deed dtd. 10/10/1967. In the year 1981, an application was filed by the appellant herein under Sec. 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, 'PTCL Act'), for resumption of the lands which were sold under the sale deeds dtd. 30/7/1966 and 10/10/1967. The said application was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein had filed W.P.No.23280/1991 which was remanded by this Court for fresh disposal. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 5 of the PTCL Act and as against the said order, an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the said appeal on 21/6/2002 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Assistant Commissioner, thereafter, passed the order dtd. 20/3/2009 allowing the application filed by the appellant herein under Sec. 5 of the PTCL Act and the said order was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein who had confirmed the said order and as against the same, W.P.No.12748/2011 was filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 herein which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant who was respondent no.4 in the writ petition has preferred this intra court appeal.