DAKHYA NAIK Vs. JAVARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed by petitioners (respondent Nos. 3-(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) in W.A. No. 898/1993) seeking review of judgment dtd. 23/4/2021 passed in W.A. No. 898/1993 and consequently to hear and dispose of W.A. No. 898/1993 afresh.

(2.) The gist of petitioner's case is that, the land bearing survey No. 20/6 in Block No. 6 of Mosarahalli Village, Bhadravati taluk, measuring 3 acres was granted in favour of one Sri. Dakya Naika, son of Sri. Dodda Dharma Naika on 16/6/1957 under Darkasth Rules. It was indicated thereunder that non-alienation period is 15 years. Grantee sold the entire extent of 3 acres under a registered sale deed dtd. 20/3/1963 in favour of Smt. Krishna Bai and she in turn sold 1 acre out of total extent of 3 acres in favour of Sri. Javarappa (appellant in writ appeal and respondent No. 1 in this petition) under a registered sale deed dtd. 30/3/1967. The grantee - Sri. Dakya Naika claims to have filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga, for resumption of land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'PTCL Act'). The Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division, Shivamogga, in PTCL CR No. 290/1982-83, initiated proceedings under Sec. 5(1) of the PTCL Act, on the basis of report from the Tahsildar, in RRC.KR:188/78-79 dtd. 31/7/1982 and notice under Rule 3(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'PTCL Rules') came to be issued to respondent No. 1 as to why sale deed executed in his favour should not be declared as null and void.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of Sri. Kantharaj H., learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. L. Lakshminarayana, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the records of the writ appeal. Contentions of learned Senior counsel for petitioners