Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The 1st respondent in W.P.No.24411/2005 (SC/ST), on the file of learned single Judge of this Court, has come up in this appeal impugning the order dated 15.12.2014, passed therein.

2. The brief facts leading to this intra-Court appeal are that, the aforesaid writ petition was filed by 3 r d respondent herein, challenging the order of Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi Sub-Division, Sirsi, in proceedings No.PTCL-Viva-1/04-05, which was filed by the 3 r d respondent herein under section 4 and 5 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act, for short), in seeking restoration of land to an extent of 8 acres 19 guntas, in Sy.No.232 of Kanthraji village of Sirsi taluk, from the appellant herein namely Bhangarya Bista Naik (Dasan).

4. It is seen that the said position continued till the demise of 3 r d respondent's husband Fakira Chalavadi, without there being any resistance to the possession, cultivation and enjoyment of land in question by the appellant herein from the original grantee who had sold the land in favour of the appellant in the year 1972. It is after the death of Fakira Chalavadi who died on 18.12.2002, his widow 3 r d respondent herein approached the 2 n d respondent Assistant Commissioner of Sirsi Sub- Division, Sirsi, by application dated 22.3.2003 seeking restoration of aforesaid land on the ground that there is violation of grant condition by her husband in conveying the land in question in favour of the appellant herein, which is subsequently held to be invalid pursuant to the enactment of PTCL Act, 1978, coming into force where liberty was reserved to the grantees to seek restoration of lands, which are conveyed in favour of 3 r d parties even prior to the said Act coming into force.

8. It is seen that by the time this appeal came up for consideration before this Court, the right of original grantee seeking restoration of land sold in contravention of the provisions of PTCL Act was provided quietus by the Apex Court in the matter of Chhedi Lal Y ad av and others vs. Har i Kishore Y ad av (D) Thr. LRs. and others, repor ted in LAWS (SC) 2017-4-146, which is followed by another judgment rendered by very same Bench in Civil Appeal No.1390/2009, in the matter of Nekkan ti Rama Lakshmi vs. S tate of Karnataka and another.

...................

10. While coming to such opinion, the Apex Court expressly overruled the law as it was prevailing with reference to restoration as decided in the matter of (i) R.Rudrappa vs. Deputy Commissioner, reported in 2000(1) KLJ 523 (ii) Maddurappa vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2006(4) KLJ 303 (iii) G.Maregouda vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga district, Chitradurga and others, reported in 2000(2) KLJ S.N.4B. While overruling the said judgments, it is expressed by the Apex Court that there is no limitation provided by section 5 of the PTCL Act and therefore application can be made at any time for restoration, is overruled.