NARAYANASWAMY Vs. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal takes exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 14th August 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.31117/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant and the sixth respondent has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant and the sixth respondent claiming to be the legal representatives of the original grantee initiated the proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') for restoration of the land bearing Sy.No.151 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas situated at Hosahalli village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North taluk, hereinafter referred to as a 'schedule property'. It was their specific contention that the schedule property was granted to one Thimmappa @ Thimmaiah, who belonged to the SC/ST community on 24th September 1941 subject to the condition that the grantee shall not alienate the land forever. It is also contended that the said grantee sold the schedule property vide sale deeds dated 29th March 1966 and 12th January 1972. Subsequently, the schedule property was sold in favour of the third to fifth respondents in the year 2005.

(3.) The appellant has further contended that in the year 2007, the appellant and the sixth respondent initiated proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. The said petition having been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant and the sixth respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was withdrawn by filing a memo dated 16th June 2014. Subsequently, the appellant and the sixth respondent once again initiated the proceedings in the year 2015 before the Assistant Commissioner for restoration of the schedule property by seeking nullification of the sale deeds as being violative of the provisions of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner having allowed the said petition vide order dated 28th September 2015, the third to fifth respondents herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the same vide order dated 14th November 2018. The said order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was challenged by the appellant and the sixth respondent herein before the learned Single Judge.