P. KAMALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners and the private respondents in W.P.No.38563-64/2009 are before this Court calling in question the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'PTCL Act' for short) provides that an application may be made by any interested party or on information given in writing by any person or suo motu the Assistant Commissioner, if satisfied that the transfer of any granted land is null and void under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4, he may cause notice to the person affected, give reasonable opportunity of being heard and, by order take possession of such land after evicting all persons in possession thereof in such manner as may be prescribed. One such application was made by Sri Krishnappa, the appellant in W.A.No.774/2015, contending that his grandfather Sri Anjanappa was granted 2 acres of land in Old Sy.No.31/10, New Sy.No.84 of Sriramanahalli, Hesarghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, initially under the Grow More Food scheme and after confirmation, the grant certificate was issued to Anjanappa on 03.09.1949, with a condition of non-alienation for a period of ten years. It was further contended that though the condition stipulated in the grant certificate restricts alienation for a period of ten years, as per the prevailing Rules i.e., Government Order No.2828 LR 89-38-10 dated 13.12.1938, lands granted in favour of Depressed Class persons shall not be alienated forever.

(3.) It was contended that since Anjanappa sold the granted land to one Sri H.T.Subba Rao on 29.12.1967, the first sale and all further transfers were hit by the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application by order dated 22.02.2008 and directed resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the applicant. When the matter was taken up in appeal, under Section 5A of the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was dismissed. Consequently, the writ petitions came to be filed and by order dated 21.01.2015, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter on certain facts and on the question of adverse possession.