SYED NISSAR AHMED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be the purchaser of land measuring two acres in Sy.No.91/8 is said to have been granted in Darkasth proceedings to one Shivamurthappa son of A. K. Nagappa by an order of grant dated 22.04.1966. Petitioner states that he has purchased the said property through a sale deed dated 07.11.1977 and thereafter, he has made improvements to the said land.

(2.) It is stated that the son of the original grantee has instituted the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2009-2010 in case No.PTCL.CR.20/2009-10 seeking for resumption and to set aside the sale deed and to restore the land to the grantees. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 08.11.2010, has allowed the application holding that there was violation of Section 4(1) of Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands (P.T.C.L) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as 'Act' for short) and declaring that alienations made were illegal and directed for resumption and restoration of said land to the grantees family. The Assistant Commissioner has recorded the findings that the grantee belonged to Scheduled Caste; that the condition of non-alienation was fifteen years and that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was within the said period of fifteen years during which period alienation could not have been made. Said order was taken up in appeal and the Deputy Commissioner, who by his order dated 17.01.2014, has upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner has assailed the order primarily on the ground that petitioner was in continuous possession for more than thirty years and had perfected title by adverse possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that proceedings for resumption being initiated in the year 2009-10 is beyond the period of thirty years from the date of the transaction as well as beyond the period of thirty years of the Act coming into force.

(3.) It is also contended that right to set aside the said alienation starts immediately on violation of condition which would be in the year 1977 and hence, no action has been taken to invoke the remedy available under Section 4(1) of the Act within a reasonable period of time and that the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have entertained the proceedings.