Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ptcl in Sri. Lacha Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 September, 2023Matching Fragments
The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 23.11.1982, vide Annexure- A; 21.12.1999, vide Annexure-B; 19.09.2000, vide Annexure-C; and 17.02.2023, vide Annexure-D. NC: 2023:KHC:33146
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
Land bearing Sy.No.38 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas situated at Ramanahalli Village in Tarikere Taluk was granted in favour of Sri. Sankaranaik, father of petitioner with a condition that he should not alienate the property for 20 years. Petitioner's father sold the said land in favour of Late Mohammed Shafi on 15.12.1961 and corrigendum was effected to the sale deed and sale was completed on 02.07.1975. Petitioner's father filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3 for restoration of granted land. Respondent No.3 rejected the said petition vide order dated 23.11.1982 - Annexure-A. After the death of petitioner's father, petitioner's elder brother after attaining majority filed a similar application on the same ground under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 rejected the said application vide order dated 21.12.1999 - Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner's brother preferred an appeal before NC: 2023:KHC:33146 respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.09.2000 - Annexure-C, dismissed the appeal. After the death of petitioner's brother, petitioner filed an application under the provisions of PTCL Act before respondent No.3 on the same grounds. The respondent No.3 vide order dated 17.02.2023 - Annexure-D, rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders vide Annexures A, B, C and D, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has not conducted any enquiry while passing order as per Annexure-A. He submits that the said aspect was also not considered by respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 21.12.1999, Annexure-B. He submits that respondents No.2 and 3 have committed an error in passing the impugned orders. He submits that the sale transaction is in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Hence he submits that respondents No.2 and 3 have failed to consider the object of enactment of the NC: 2023:KHC:33146 PTCL Act. On these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned orders and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Perused the records and considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the land bearing No.38 of Ramanahalli Village was granted in favour of father of the petitioner. The original grantee, i.e., petitioner's father sold the said land in favour of Late Mohammed Shafi under registered sale deed dated 15.12.1961. Later on, a corrigendum was effected the said sale deed on 02.07.1975. The PTCL Act came into force in the year 1978. The original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for restoration and resumption of land. Respondent No.3 passed an order on 23.11.1982, Annexure-A, rejecting the said application. Thereafter, NC: 2023:KHC:33146 petitioner's father died. Petitioner's brother filed similar application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on identical grounds before respondent No.3 alleging that the sale transaction is in violation of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.3 after holding enquiry, dismissed the said application vide order dated 21.12.1999, Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner's brother preferred an appeal before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.09.2000, Annexure-C, dismissed the appeal. After the death of petitioner's brother, petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act on identical grounds before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 17.02.2023, Annexure-D, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the orders passed by the competent authority have attained finality. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid orders. The orders passed by respondents No.2 and 3 are having binding effect on the petitioner.
NC: 2023:KHC:33146
7. This Court refers to the decision of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DARYAO AND OTHERS VS THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1961 SC 1457 wherein it is held that "it is in the interest of the public at large that a finality should attach to the binding decisions pronounced by Courts' of competent jurisdiction, and it is also in the public interest that individuals should not be vexed twice over with the same kind of litigation. The binding character of judgments pronounced by the Courts of competent jurisdiction is itself an essential part of the rule of law, and the rule of law obviously is the basis of the administration of justice on which the Constitution lays so much emphasis." As observed above, the original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. The said application came to be rejected. After lapse of 16 years, the elder son of original grantee filed similar application before the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 rejected the said application vide order dated 21.12.1999. Against the order passed by respondent No.3, petitioner's brother NC: 2023:KHC:33146 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2000.