A. RAMAKRISHNA Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE purchaser of land bearing Sy. No. 71 of Tobarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, erstwhile Bangalore South Taluk and presently in Bangalore East Taluk has come up in W.P. No. 51426 of 2012 impugning the concurrent finding of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, second and first respondents in said writ petition in holding that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner is in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ('PTCL Act' for short).

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this writ petition are as under: The land bearing Sy. No. 71 of Tobarahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk was sold in favour of one Venkatappa for an upset price of Rs. 100/ - as per Official Memorandum dated 5 -4 -1955, which is at Annexure -B. It is stated that on an application, said upset price was reduced from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 25/ - per acre. Thereafter, the said amount was ordered to be paid in three instalments. It is stated that Venkatappa was given Grant Certificate with reference to an extent of 3 acres of land in aforesaid Sy. No. 71 under aforesaid Official Memorandum. The case of respondents 3 to 5, who are the legal representatives of said Venkatappa is that Venkatappa sold said property in favour of one Sanjeevappa, subsequently it has changed hands and presently, it is under the ownership, cultivation and enjoyment of petitioner herein.

(3.) IT is seen that after the death of Venkatappa, his legal representatives initiated proceedings under the provisions of PTCL Act seeking restoration of the land on the ground that there is violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The said proceedings was initiated in No. KSC/ST.PTCL 107/2005 -2006 before the Assistant Commissioner -second respondent herein, which came to be allowed by order dated 7 -12 -2007. The petitioner herein, who was respondent in said proceedings took up the same in an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner -first respondent herein in No. SC.ST(A).69/2007 -2008, wherein the Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties confirmed the order of Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the restoration of land by his order dated 22 -9 -2012. However, in the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner there is one more dimension given to the litigation in, in addition to respondents 3 to 5 seeking restoration, they were joined by another person i.e., respondent 6 and there was inter se dispute between them with reference to their right to seek restoration, which was also considered by the Deputy Commissioner. However, the petitioner herein is not concerned with the said observation with reference to right of respondents 3 to 6 and his primary concern is with reference to restoration which is ordered against him, which he has challenged in this writ petition. It is seen that with reference to the observation made by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the claim and counter -claim seeking restoration by respondents 3 to 6 is concerned, another writ petition is filed by respondents 3 to 5 in W.P. Nos. 8707, 9259 and 9260 of 2013.