MYKALLAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal has been filed against an order dtd. 17/11/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by an order dtd. 17/11/2022, has allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No.4 / purchaser and has set aside the orders dtd. 22/4/2006 and 3/4/2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land measuring 2 acres of Sy.No.44 (old Sy.No.17) situated at Mattribali Village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was granted to the father of the appellant. The aforesaid land was alienated by a sale deed dtd. 17/11/1967. Thereafter, in the year 1980-81, original grantee namely the father of the appellant filed a petition under the Act. The aforesaid petition was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner by an order dtd. 4/12/1986 on the ground that the father of the appellant does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community and there is no violation of terms of grant. Admittedly, the aforesaid order has attained finality and was not challenged. Thereafter, property was sold by Munishamappa to one Kenchappa namely father of respondent No.4. The appellant again initiated a proceeding under the Act. The Assistant Commissioner, by an order dtd. 22/4/2006, directed resumption of land in favour of the appellant which was affirmed in an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner by an order dtd. 3/4/2007. The purchaser namely respondent No.4 challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by an order dtd. 17/11/2022, has quashed the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and has allowed the writ petition. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 / purchaser was dismissed on 13/11/2007, 26/11/2008 and 15/9/2011 and after an inordinate delay of 10 years, recalling application was filed. The learned Single Judge, however, without appreciating the aforesaid matter, has allowed the application seeking restoration and has also allowed the writ petition.