DHANALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, for having restored the land in favour of respondent No.4 by setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 01.12.2008.

(2.) Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the legal representative of the grantee remained absent.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the land in Sy.No.223 (old Sy.No.33) of S.Medahalli Village, Sarajapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 4 acres has been granted to one Chikkayellamma by the Government on 25.06.1976 with a condition not to alienate the granted land for 15 years. However, the said Chikkayellamma sold 2 acres of land in favour of Yellappa on 28.08.1991. Again, the remaining land measuring 2 acres of land was sold in favour of the same Yellappa on 22.10.1991. When the said Yellappa tried to mutate his name in the revenue records based upon the sale deed, an enquiry has been made by the Tahsildar and sent a report to the Assistant Commissioner on 29.08.2001. Based upon the report of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner took up suo motu proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act and after issuing notice to both the grantee as well as the purchaser and after conducting the enquiry came to the conclusion that the land is not a granted land, but it was an auction sale vide his order dated on 28.06.2003. Assailing the rejection of application, the grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.03.2007 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Then the Assistant Commissioner took up the proceedings and again passed the order dismissing the application vide order dated 01.12.2008. Assailing the same, the legal representative of the grantee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and after considering the record, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the land in favour of the legal representative of the grantee vide his order dated 28.02.2014 produced as Annexure-A, which is under challenge before this Court by the purchaser by way of writ petition.