THIPPANAIKA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 15-1-2009 passed in W.P. No 2506 of 2006 (SC-ST) (Thippanaika v. Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, (reported in 2010 (1) Kant LJ 288) after quashing Annexures-C and D, dated 24-11-2005 and 26-11-2005 resuming and restoring the land in favour of the appellant herein, challenged this appeal urging certain grounds.

(2.) THE ground of attack of the impugned order of the learned single Judge is that the sale was declared to be null and void. THE effect of quashing of the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is amounts to declaring the alienation made by the original grantee in favour of the 3rd respondent dated 1-4-1961 is within the stipulated period. THErefore, the learned single Judge should have asked the 2nd respondent to resume and restore the land in favour of the appellant herein. As the 2nd respondent in law is required to resume and restore the land is the statutory effect of the cancellation of the sale made in favour of the husband of the 3rd respondent. Not granting this relief by the learned single Judge after quashing the order impugned in the writ petition will not enure to the benefit of the said order to the grantee. THE object and intendment of the Act is to see that alienation as made by the grantees within the non- alienation period, violation of the terms and conditions of the grant, therefore Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter called as the 'PTCL Act').