PRABHAVATHAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 10.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16831 of 2013, by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue writ of certiorari to quash the order bearing No.PTCL(CHIKK)- 56/2006-07 dated 05.04.2010 passed by the second respondent and order bearing No.RA(SC/ST) 3/2010-11 dated 17.10.2012 passed by the first respondent. The petitioner claims that he purchased the land bearing Old Sy.No.404 and New Sy.No.437 measuring 3 acres situated at Yelagalahalli, Mandikal Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk from the father of the third respondent under sale deed dated 07.08.1992. The third respondent claims that he belongs to Adi-Karnataka Scheduled Caste Community. Further it is stated that the father of the third respondent Sri.Giddappa was granted the land in question in the year 1956-57 and on grant, name of the petitioner's father was shown in pursuance of the M.R.No.249-28/57-58 dated 09.04.1957. The third respondent's father was illiterate. Taking advantage of the same, the petitioner got executed the sale deed dated 07.08.1992. The third respondent herein filed an application on 10.11.2006 before the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner under Sections 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 resumption of the lands. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Commissioner and filed her objections contending that there was no violation of any condition while the father of the third respondent transferred the land in her favour. The provisions of PTCL Act would not attract the present case. It was also contended that the petition was barred by time. The Assistant Commissioner-second respondent noting the contentions of the parties that the land was granted at free of cost to the third respondent's father Giddappa, held that the sale which took place on 07.08.1992 as null and void and restored the possession of the land to the third respondent with a condition not to alienate the land for a period of 25 years. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner contending that there is no violation of the conditions of grant, while the father of the third respondent transferred the land in question to the petitioner since there was no non-alienation clause. It was also contended in the appeal that the petition was barred by time. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 17.10.2012 confirmed the order passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition contending that the authorities below proceeded to pass the impugned orders without looking into the records, particularly the grant order and the relevant documents. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the rival contentions by his order dated 10.04.2013 dismissed the writ petition holding that the sale which took place on 07.08.1992, after commencement of the PTCL Act is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and rejected the contention of the petitioner that it is not a granted land. Therefore, the petitioner is in appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel for the third respondent. Perused the appeal papers.