K. K. DINESH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 13.11.2001, passed by respondent No.2- Assisstant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, Pandavapura, at Annexure-A and order dated 24.03.2009, passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, at Annexure-B, by allowing the application filed by respondent No.4 under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PTCL Act', for short) for resumption and restoration of the granted land in Sy.No.166, measuring 3 acres, situated Allambady village, Akkihebbal Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner is that the Government vide order dated 18.03.1980 had granted the land measuring 3 acres to respondent No.4, under Section

(3.) (1)(b) of the 'PTCL Act' and respondent No.4 was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The petitioner said to have lent the loan for a sum of Rs.6,500/- to respondent No.4. In order to recover the said loan amount, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.88/1987, which came to be decreed. The execution petition also came to be filed in Ex.P.No.9/1988. Under the execution proceedings, the civil Court put the granted property in auction sale and accordingly, the auction sale was conducted on 21.03.1995. Under the said auction sale, the very petitioner himself had purchased the said property for valuable sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5 of the 'PTCL Act' for resumption and restoration of the land, before respondent No.2 thereafter, respondent No.2 had issued notice to the petitioner and after enquiry, respondent No.2 allowed the application filed by the respondent No.4 and set-aside the sale deed got executed to the petitioner under auction sale through the execution proceedings of the civil Court and restored the land to the original grantee, deceased respondent No.4. Assailing the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 under Section 5A of the 'PTCL Act', which came to be dismissed and uphold the order passed by respondent No.1. Assailing the orders of both the respondent-authorities, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-authorities.