M VIJAYKRISHNA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

(2.) There is no dispute to the fact that the land was granted in the year 1935 and the sale deed was executed by the husband of the grantee on 24.06.1960 in favour of one Rajanna. By registered sale deed dated 05.10.2009, the said Rajanna along with other members of his family sold the land in favour of the petitioner for valuable and valid consideration under a registered sale deed and possession was also delivered to the petitioner. On 07.10.2014, respondent No.3 preferred an application before the respondent No.2 with a prayer to void the sale effected in favour of the petitioner on the premise that the grant in favour of his great grandmother is a free grant and grantee belonged to the depressed class and sale is in violation of provisions of sections 4 and 5 of Karnataka SC & ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 and thereby prayed for resumption of the land in his favour, being the legal heir of the original grantee.

(3.) The respondent No.1 registered the case bearing No. PTCL- SR: 10/2014-15 and by order dated 14.4.2017 was pleased to allow the application and further by proceedings of May 2017 was pleased to allow the application and order for resumption of the land. Petitioner preferred an appeal in June 2017 before the respondent No.1 which came to be registered as case bearing No. PTCL- 02/2017-18 and the respondent No.1 by order dated 08.12.2017 was pleased to reject the appeal and affirm the order of the respondent No.2 whereby the sale in favour of the petitioner came to be void. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned orders being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case, the same requires to be set aside. He further contends that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed as the application for resumption and voiding the sale is made after a passage of nearly more than 45 years. The respondent No.3 has not been diligent in either asserting or executing his rights and hence, the impugned orders at Annexure-'A' and 'B' requires to be interferred with.