Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. They contended that the above alienations were in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("the PTCL Act") and were thus null and void, and that they were required to be resumed and restored to them as they were the legal heirs of the original grantee -- Muniga (son of Muniga).

8. During the pendency of these proceedings, KL Ramaiah sought to be impleaded on the ground that he had a right in the granted lands, but his application was rejected, against which, an appeal was filed wherein he was ordered to be impleaded as an additional respondent and accordingly, he was impleaded as the 4th petitioner.

20. He ultimately concluded that the applicants had not produced records to substantiate that there had been a grant made in the year 1927-28 but he also held that the proceedings for resumption had been invoked only in 2005 i.e., 26 years after the PTCL Act had come into force and due to this inordinate delay, the claim could not be entertained. He accordingly allowed the appeals of the purchasers and proceeded to reject the application that had been filed for resumption.

37. In respect of W.P.No.22712/2016 filed by Munivenkatappa's son, contending that his father had been granted land in Sy. No. 140 and that the grant set up of the year 1927 by the legal heirs of Muniga was bogus, in my view, cannot be considered in a

- 32 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1001 resumption proceedings under the PTCL Act. In my view, this question ought not to have been raised in resumption proceedings initiated by the legal heirs of an alleged grantee, under the PTCL Act, and even if it had been raised, neither the Assistant Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner could have embarked upon an enquiry and could have recorded any finding on this aspect of the matter.

38. It is to be stated here that in a resumption proceedings under the PTCL Act, the questions to be considered by the authorities is whether the applicants, who would be either the grantee or the legal heirs of the grantee, had proved that they were the legal heirs of the grantee; whether the land claimed for resumption and restoration was a granted land as defined under the PTCL Act; and whether the granted land had been transferred in contravention of the terms of the grant. Apart from these questions, no