VELLURI VENKATARAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANGERE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 1.7.2002 impugned at Annexure-A and the order dated 6.2.2015 impugned at Annexure-'F' to the petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 28/1 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas situated at Kashipura Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davangere District. The said property was purchased under a sale deed dated 9.1.1976 from its original owner Sri Jagannath Rao. The vendor of the petitioner had purchased the property from its earlier owners. Thus, when I the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property'' the original/respondent No. 4 is stated to have made an application under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act' for short) before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after providing opportunity to the parties through the order dated 1-7-2002 had set aside the sale dated 13-2-1967 and ordered restoration of the land to the 4th respondent herein. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal as provided under Sec. 5-A of the PTCL Act The Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 25-10-2004 had allowed the appeal.

(3.) The 4th respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved was before this Court in W.P. No. 19118 of 2006. This Court by the order dated 4-8-2009 was of the opinion that though the Deputy Commissioner had allowed the appeal, the reason assigned to come to a conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner had not relied upon the appropriate documents as it was not available in the file was not justified and in that view it was held that the Deputy Commissioner himself could have secured the records, examined the same and should have arrived at the conclusion. In that view, the matter was remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter. The Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 18-5-2012 on reconsideration rejected the appeal. The matter arose before this Court subsequently in W.P. No. 18466 of 2012 which was disposed of on 9-1-2014 and this Court on taking note that a consideration in accordance with law had not been made with specific reference to the observation contained in para 10 thereof had allowed the petition and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. It is on such consideration, the impugned order dated 6-2-2016 is passed. Through the said order the sale deeds made in respect of the property in question has been set aside and the restoration has beer, ordered. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.