RAMAVVA LAMBANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father-in-law of the petitioner was granted 05 acres 09 guntas of land in survey No.318 of Nelaharvi Village of Kalagatagi Taluk, Dist. Dharwad, in the year 1958-59. He belonged to scheduled caste category. For legal necessities, he sold 02 acres 02 guntas of land in favour of respondent No.3 by a registered sale deed dtd. 15/6/1978 for a valuable consideration. Thereafter, in the year 1991, the father-in-law of the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner with a prayer to cancel the sale deed and put him in possession of the property on the ground that he is a scheduled caste person and as per the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prohibition of transfer of certain lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1978', for brevity), the said alienation is bad in law and he is entitled for re- possession of the said land. The 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner by an order dtd. 22/3/1991 allowed the application of the father-in-law of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent, which has been allowed on 16/2/1993, on the ground that there was no prohibition for alienation and thus, the transaction is not covered under the Act, 1978. The father-in-law of the petitioner died subsequently. Thereafter, the petitioner in the year 2010, approached the 2nd respondent again and sought for resumption of the land in question. The 2nd respondent allowed the said application and ordered for resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on the ground that proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner way back in the year 1991 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent in the year 1991 was subsequently challenged before the 1st respondent and he has passed an order in the year 1993 itself and the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the petition once again on the same grounds, has allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the original order passed by the 1st respondent dtd. 16/2/1993 bearing No.LND.AP.SR.11/91/92 vide Annexure-B and the order dtd. 18/10/2011 bearing No.PTCL/AP/CR/01/2010-11 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) In spite of being represented by the advocate, the advocate for the 3rd respondent has remained absent. The learned AGA justifies the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) The land was granted to the father-in-law of the petitioner in the year 1958-59. He has sold the property in favour of 3rd respondent on 15/6/1978. He has challenged the same before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Act, 1978, as late in the year 1991. The 2nd respondent without assigning any valid reasons, has allowed the application filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner and has ordered for resumption and restoration of the land on 22/3/1991. The same was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner and the 1st respondent on the ground that there was no restriction on transfer and the sale deed is not in violation of any provisions of law, has passed an order on 16/2/1993 reversing the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The said decision was accepted by the father-in-law of the petitioner and reached finality. Thereafter, after the death of father-in-law of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent in the year 2010, who has allowed the said application. Once the proceedings initiated have attained finality, the 2nd respondent did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said application. It is not open for the petitioner to challenge the 16/2/1993 order now. The order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-D to the writ petition is bad in law, which has been correctly reversed by the order of the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. I do not find any error in the same. Even otherwise, the alienation done by the father-in-law of the petitioner in the year 1978 has not been challenged within a reasonable time.