Petitioners in these petitions are claiming themselves to be children of one Malla @ Mallappa said to be original grantee of land bearing Sy.No.139 (old No.100) of Khaji Sonnahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

2. According to the petitioners, their father Malla was granted an extent of 2 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.139 (old No.100) of Khaji Sonnahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, on 6.11.1937. During his life time, Malla sold entire extent of 2 acres 5 gunta in favour of one Kadirappa under a registered sale deed dated 25.4.1949, who in turn sold the same to one Smt. Chokkamma under registered sale deed dated 18.10.1950. In the meanwhile, it is stated that Malla died. So also the subsequent purchaser Smt. Chokkamma. Thereafter, the children of Smt.Chokkamma namely Sri. Narayanappa and Sri. Thimmaiah sold aforesaid land in favour of Sri. Appanna and Sri. Nanjappa, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein under registered sale deed dated 31.5.1990, who got themselves registered as khathedars in RTC and continued to be in possession and cultivation thereof.

3. When matter stood thus, according to the petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008, Muniyamma – petitioner in WP.No.1951/2016, who is daughter of alleged original grantee Malla and sister of petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008 filed an application seeking resumption of land in her favour on the premise that sale of land by her father in the year 1949 and subsequent sale deeds are hit by the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act for short). The said application filed by Muniyamma came to be registered with the Assistant Commissioner (Actually it is Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru North), Bengaluru in K.SC.ST.No.16/2003-2004, which came to be allowed by order dated 22.3.2005, wherein it was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) that the land which is in the custody of respondent Nos.3 and 4 should be resumed to the Government and thereafter should be reconveyed to Muniyamma. Being aggrieved by the said order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner), respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, in Appeal No.SC.ST(A) 1/2005-2006, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, North Sub Division and Muniyamma were arraigned as parties.

4. The grievance of petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008 is that either at the time of filing of application for resumption of land or at the stage of appeal he was not included as party to the proceedings and it was independently pursued by Muniyamma, (who is his sister) behind his back in depriving his right to be a party to the proceeding initiated to seek resumption of land in question. Therefore, filing of appeal without arraigning him as a party is erroneous for the reason that the revenue entries which are entered subsequent to the order of Assistant Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) indicated that Malla’s legal heirs are not only Muniyamma but also Thimmaiah – petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008.

5. It is the further grievance of petitioner in WP.No.6051/2008 that in the appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the Special Deputy Commissioner Muniyamma through her son entered into a compromise with appellants in said proceedings, who are respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and made a submission that land which was sold by Malla in favour of Kadirappa in the year 1949 is not a granted land but it is an ancestral property and therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act does not get attracted. However, the Special Deputy Commissioner has decided the said appeal not only on the basis of submission mad by the GPA holder of Muniyamma but also on the basis of material on record and held that there is no material to show that it was a granted land, as such there is no violation of the condition subsequently stipulated under the provisions of PTCL Act. The said ord