K. D. LINGARAJU Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased 3 acres of land in Sy.No.156/56 of Dodkodli Village, Somwarpet Taluk by a registered sale deed dtd. 29/3/1989. The said sale was nullified by the orders of revenue authorities on the ground that the purchase was in violation of the provisions of Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act'). The revenue entries were changed subsequent to the said nullification. The orders of the revenue authorities were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.7224/2010. The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders nullifying the sale were set aside. Pursuant to the same, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records as the owner as well as cultivator. However, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order dtd. 18/7/2022 (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition), wherein, he states that only the impugned orders have been set aside by the Court and there is no direction to mutate the property in the name of the petitioner and has ordered for removal of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 fairly submits that the impugned order is an unfortunate incident of an officer acting most irresponsibly for the reasons best known to him and it deserves to be set aside.

(3.) The petitioner purchased the land from the grantee. He is entitled to have his name mutated in the revenue records. However, the said purchase was nullified on the ground that the same was in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Consequently, his name was removed from the revenue entries. Subsequently, the orders passed by the authorities nullifying the purchase has been set aside by this Court. The automatic consequence of it should be re-entering the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, which was done. Without any reason the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order stating that as there was no specific direction given by the Court, it is ordered that the name in the revenue entries be restored to what it was earlier meaning that the name of the petitioner should be removed from the same. Any person with common sense would not pass such an order. The only conclusion that one can arrive at is that the order is passed with oblique motives. This Court condemns the act of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.