R.BASAVAREDDI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land bearing Sy.No.25 measuring 27.10 acres situated at Lokikere, Kodligi taluk originally belonged to Dalawai Tindappa and late Bommanagouda and after the death of Tindapa and Bhamanagoda, the name of T. Bheemappa son of Tindappa was mutated in the revenue records. The subject land was sought to be conveyed in a public auction in the year 1997, since T. Bheemappa had failed to redeem the subject land by repaying the entire loan amount. Since there were no bidders in the auction, the subject land was purchased by the Government. Thereafter the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. The subject land was distributed to landless persons and their names were mutated in the revenue records.

(2.) In 1983, a scheme was introduced whereby the reconveyance of the lands, which were purchased by the Government, was permitted on payment of principal amount, by waiving the interest amount. T. Bheemappa availed the said scheme, and repaid the entire amount, and in pursuance of the same, the subject land was reconveyed to T. Bheemappa. The petitioners purchased the subject land to an extent of 18 acres out of 27.10 acres through a registered sale deed dtd. 29/8/1986. Thereafter, the name of the petitioners entered in the revenue records was challenged by respondent No.4, who is the daughter of deceased T. Bheemappa, by filing an appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal confirming the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners against which, a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act was filed before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by impugned order, set aside the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the mutation entry was affected without examining the violation of Sec. 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'the PTCL Act'). Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land was reconveyed to the original owners. Therefore, the provisions of the PTCL Act are not applicable. More so, when the reconveyance was not challenged by any person and has attained finality.