MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 9th October 2017 passed in Writ Petition Nos.45206-45209 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the writ petitioners have filed the instant appeals.

(2.) Brief facts that are necessary for consideration of the present appeals are as follows:

(3.) On 26.06.1995, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 executed a sale deed selling the granted land in favour of one Smt. Vanitha D/o Nanjunda Reddy. Subsequently, the property has changed hands by further sales. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, for the first time, in the year 2006-07, initiated proceedings before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for resumption of land in their favour on the ground that the sale made on 26.06.1995 was contrary to and in violation of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 19.09.2008 allowed the claim of the petitioners and restored the land in favour of the legal representatives of the original grantee by declaring that the land sold on 26.06.1995 was null and void as it was in violation of Section 4(2) of the Act inasmuch permission was not sought before registering the sale deed. Pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, it is the case of the petitioners that revenue entries were made in their favour. This order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in 2010 by the subsequent purchaser of the property who was not a party before the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 5.02.2014, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, on the ground that petitioners before him were not arrayed as party respondents before the Assistant Commissioner. This order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petitions. After hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that the writ petitions are preferred after three years and eight months of passing of the order by the Deputy Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners have preferred the instant writ appeals.