BYRAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned petition is filed by the purchasers of a granted land assailing the orders of respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner who has entertained the petition under Ss. 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") and has ordered for restoration of the land in question in favour of respondent No.3 and same is confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) Before I proceed to examine as to whether the authorities were justified in entertaining the petition seeking restoration of land ignoring delay of 17 years, it would be necessary to examine whether respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner could have invoked the provisions of PTCL Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, one Mutturu Muniswamappa who is the paternal grandfather of one Ramanjinappa purchased the petition land in a Government auction held on 31/12/1944. On perusal of Annexure-C, it is evident that the authorities have issued grant certificate in Form No.1. On examining the said grant certificate, this Court would find that the entire auction price of Rs.5.10 is collected by the authority and on deposit of auction price, saguvali chit is issued by the authorities.

(3.) Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration is, as to whether respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to restore the land on the premise that there is violation of provisions of PTCL Act. My answer is emphatically 'No'. The controversy in regard to issuance of grant certificate under Form No.1 is no more res integra.