1. These appeals are filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.Nos.11589-11591/2011 dated 16th August 2011. The appellant in W.A.Nos.579-581/2012 was respondent No.4. The appellants in writ appeal Nos.449-451/2012 were the writ petitioners. Therefore, all these appeals are heard together.

2. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:

One Nanjusa, the father of the writ petitioners had purchased about 4 acres and 13 guntas of land in survey No.77 of Agrahara Dasarahalli village in Bangalore city under two sale deeds from one Gundamma and Papaiah on 28.06.1962. Gundamma and Papaiah were enjoying the lands pursuant to their hereditary rights in respect of personal and miscellaneous inams. On 04.08.1962, under section 5 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, the order of regrant was granted to Gundamma and Papaiah. Thereafter, the father of the writ petitioners Nanjusa converted the land from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes pursuant to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, on 27.05.1965. Subsequently, Nanjusa divided the properties under the registered document on 8.5.1974. The petitioners having availed loan from the bank commenced a factory therein after obtaining necessary plan and licence in the year 1985. In respect of the very same land, certain civil suits were also filed by the writ petitioners and so also by one of the legal heirs of Gundamma by name Ramakka, the daughter of Gundamma. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her suit, she filed an appeal in R.F.A.No.283/2001 which appeal also came to be dismissed by this court on 19.3.2004. Later Ramakka also challenged the order of conversion granted by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the father of the writ petitioners by filing an application in 2009 which application came to be rejected on 2.6.2010.

3. 4th respondent who is not the descendant of Gundamma or Siddamma addressed a letter to the Director of Civil Enforcement Cell, questioning the legality and correctness of the sale deed executed by Gundamma and Papaiah on 28.06.1962 which was treated as an application under section 4 of the PTCL Act by the Assistant Commissioner who ordered for resumption on 09.09.2010.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the writ petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under section 5A of the PTCL Act, which appeal came to be dismissed on 18.03.2011 in appeal No.89/2010.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 09.09.2010 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated on 17.03.2011, the writ petitions came to be filed.

6. It was contended by the writ petitioners that fourth respondent Jagadish has no locus standi to invoke the provisions of P.T.C.L. Act and that there was no application filed by him as required under the provisions of the PTCL Act and that considering the nature of rights of Gundamma and Papaiah, the provision of PTCL Act had no application.

Accordingly, they requested the Court to allow the writ petitions and to set-aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner.

7. The writ petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by the very same learned Single Judge in the case of M. Munikenchappa vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Dist. and others (2004(2) KCCR 1025).

8. It was contended that fourth respondent was the legal heir of Siddamma and he has a right to maintain a petition for resumption and that the judgment of the learned single Judge in Munikenchappa’s case was no more a good law.

9. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, reconsidered his earlier order passed in Munikenchappa’s case and came to the conclusion that the land granted to Siddamma and Gundamma under Section 5 of the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, 1954 would attract the definition of ‘granted land’ under section 3(1) (b) of the PTC