S. R. BANNURMATH, J.

( 1 ) CHALLENGING the order dated 26-6-1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, tarikere Sub-Division, Tarikere, Chikmagalur District, in no. SC. ST 12/90-91 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) rejecting the application of the petitioner to declare the sale of the land as void and the consequential relief of resumption and restoration under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of transfer of Certain Lands) Act (for short the "ptcl Act"), as well as the order dated 8-6-1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur, in Appeal No. PTL 27/98-99 rejecting the appeal only on the ground of delay and laches (Annexure-D to the writ petition), the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition.

( 2 ) THE brief facts, according to the petitioner, are as follows: the petitioner is a resident of Sutha Village, Hosanagara Taluk, shimoga District. He belongs to "dombaru" caste which is recognised as scheduled Caste under the Constitution of India, 1950, as per the relevant scheduled Caste Order. It is the case of the petitioner that the land, Survey No. 16/p of Gopala Village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere taluk, measuring 2 acres was granted to Veerappa, father of the petitioner, under the Darkasth Rules on and by the order dated 4-10-1962. Though originally an upset price of Rs. 75/- per acre was fixed, on the application made by the grantee the upset price was waived off on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and as such the grant was free of costs. According to the petitioner, though there was a condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years, the land came to be sold to one balachandra in the year 1965 and later the said Balachandra sold it in favour of respondent 4 in the year 1972.

( 3 ) AFTER coming into force the PTCL Act, the petitioner moved the assistant Commissioner to take action under Section 4 of the PTCL Act, i. e. , for declaring the sales made in favour of Balachandra and respondent 4 as void as the same are in violation of the Land Grant Rules and for consequential relief of resumption and restoration. By the impugned order the Assistant Commissioner rejected the prayer of the petitioner on two grounds, viz. , (1) that the petitioner has failed to prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe, since his claim that he belongs to "dombaru" caste is belied by the Certificate produced from the Headmaster where the petitioner had studied indicates that he belongs to "gani Dombidasaru" community which is not a Scheduled caste; and (2) that the grant was not under the scheme made for depressed class but was under the scheme of rehabilitation of displaced persons and as such it does not come within the purview of PTCL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner after a lapse of 6 years and 8 months with an application for condonation of delay. Though initially the petitioner was represented by a Counsel, as he did not turn up after filing his Vakalath on a number of occasions, the Deputy Commissioner considering the application for condonation of delay held that the long delay in filing the appeal, i. e. , 6 years and 8 months, could not be condoned as no sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, he dismissed the application. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The petitioner has challenged these two orders in this petition.

( 4 ) THE main ground of attack of the petitioner against the order of the deputy Commissioner is that in the light of the decision of the Full bench of this Court in the case of K. Munishamappa v State of Karnataka and Others , the Deputy Commissioner could not have decided the case or even the application on merits when the petitioner's Counsel was absent. It is contended that at the most the Deputy Commissioner could have dismissed the appeal for default and could not have rejected the condonation of delay applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document