Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Subsequently, on PTCL Act coming into force, the husband of First Petitioner and father of Second Petitioner viz., Ponnuswamy said to be the son of Subbanna - original grantee filed an application before 2nd Respondent - Asst Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division seeking restoration of said land under the provisions of PTCL Act, contending that, the sale of said land by his father Late Subbanna is in contravention of land grant rules and as well as the provisions of PTCL Act and sought for restoration of said land. The said application which was registered as Case No.LND.SC.ST 2/88-89 came to be allowed by order of Asst. Commissioner Dated:18.81988. The said order of the Asst. Commissioner of Doddaballapur was challenged by the 4th Respondent before the 1st Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in Case No.LND.SC.ST. 18/88-89, wherein his grievance was that, in the proceedings before Asst. Commissioner no enquiry was held to ascertain whether the original grantee was a person belonging to S.C/S.T,. That, in the absence of a clear finding on the same, the Asst. Commissioner could not have held that there is violation of the provisions of PTCL Act. The said proceedings was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner and he remanded the same for reconsideration of 2nd Respondent - Asst. Commissioner vide order Dated:28.1.1989.

5. In the remanded proceedings, which was numbered as case No.LND.SC.ST 2/1988-89 the 2nd Respondent - Asst. Commissioner after hearing the counsel for both the parties held that the grant of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.91 of Alur Duddanahalli village in favour of Subbanna was subjected to non-alienability condition of 15 years and that the said person belongs to schedule tribe on the basis of certificate produced by him and verification of the grant certificate. Further held that the sale deeds executed by original grantee - Subbanna would indicate that the sale in favour of Pillappa and subsequent sale of said land by Pillappa to Munivenkatappa and from him to Chandre Gowda - 4th Respondent herein is contrary to the condition imposed in the grant certificate and as well as the provisions of PTCL Act and accordingly, the said sale transactions are required to be set aside and the land is required to be restored to the applicant - Ponnuswamy.

9. In this proceedings, the contesting 4th Respondent has filed detailed statement of objections producing all the original documents, namely Darkasth register extract and the proceedings conducted prior to grant of land in favour of Subbanna and others. The said document is produced as Annexure-R1 and the Grant Certificate which is issued to Subbanna is at Annexure-R2. He has also produced the list of backward classes of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India along with the statement of objections, wherein it is contended in the first place that the grantee - Subbanna was not belonging either to schedule caste or schedule tribe and he was a person belonging to backward class; that the alleged grant is not a grant; that the same is under an auction sale conducted by the competent authority and the issuance of grant certificate is by receiving the value of the land as decided in the proceedings which was conducted prior to considering the grant of land in favour of Subbanna and 9 other persons in a proceedings which is referred to at Annexure-R1. Therefore, the application filed by Ponnuswamy claiming himself belonging to oppressed class and sale of land by his father is in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act, is not maintainable on both the counts i.e., on the ground that they belong to oppressed class, namely schedule caste/schedule tribe and that the grant made in their favour is protected under the provisions of PTCL Act and as well as that the grant in favour of Subbanna attracts the provisions of PTCL Act and also subject to non- alienability clause as it was applicable to granted lands in the year 1961.

13. It is also seen that initially when the proceedings was conducted before the Asst. Commissioner, he has not looked into any of these facts, even though he was specifically directed by the 1st Respondent Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the caste to which Ponnuswamy belongs to, he has not complied the same, instead, by believing the certificate which was produced by Ponnuswamy has proceeded to hold that Ponnuswamy belongs to oppressed class and as such the sale transaction by Subbanna in favour of Pillappa and subsequent transactions are hit by the provisions of PTCL Act. However, subsequently when the same was remanded for the second time it is seen from the order at Annexure-L, the Asst. Commissioner after giving sufficient opportunity to both the parties has held that Ponnuswamy who is said to be son of Subbanna does not belong to schedule caste and that the sale transaction by Subbanna in favour of Pillappa and subsequent sale deeds are not hit by the provisions of PTCL, appears to be just and proper and does not call for interference.