The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of the PTCL Act, particularly regarding the prohibition of transfer of granted land, the binding nature of non-alienation conditions, and the limitations on adverse possession claims by purchasers.

ORDER :

R. Devdas, J.

1. The petitioners who claim to be the legal heirs of the original grantee Sri. Thippanna @ Giddappa are before this Court calling in question the impugned order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, who has set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 13.07.2009, while remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.

2. The brief facts of the case are that 2 acres 8 guntas of land bearing Sy. No. 96/58 of Kanuru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shikaripura Taluk, Shimoga District was granted under Special Darkhasth Rules on 10.03.1949 in favour of Sri. Thippanna @ Giddappa. Mutation entry in M.R. No. 50/57-58 was made consequent to the grant in the revenue records. Permanent Saguvali Chit dated 14.03.1951 was issued in favour of the grantee. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Grant Certificate contained a non-alienation clause for a period of 20 years. However, the grantee sold the property in favour of Sri. Dodda Goneppa S/o Yellappa under a registered sale deed dated 31.07.1963. Sri. Sri. Dodda Goneppa S/o Yellappa sold the property in favour of Smt. Jaibunnisa W/o Syed Basheer Sab under a registered sale deed dated 05.06.1967.

3. The special statute, Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) was brought into force from 01.01.1979. A few months after the Act was brought into force, the original grantee filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner invoking the provisions the Act, while alleging that the sale transaction dated 31.07.1963 was in contravention to the condition of the grant, since the transaction has taken place within a period of 13 years from the date of grant and all subsequent transactions are also hit by provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act and therefore, grantee sought for declaration that the sale transactions are void. By order dated 18.02.1989, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application while holding that the sale transactions are in violation of the condition of the grant. The plea of adverse possession raised at the hands of the respondents therein was negated citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunkara Rajayalakshmi And Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 193. The Assistant Commissioner recorded a finding that as per the report of the Tahsildar, the grantee belonged to Bhovi (Wadda) community which was listed under the Scheduled Caste as per the Presidential Notification. Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner directed resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the original grantee or his legal heirs.

4. The order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 18.02.1989 was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner in a statutory appeal, by Smt. Jaibunnisa and her husband Sri. Syed Basheer Sab. By order dated 16.01.1992, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved, the subsequent purchasers approached this Court in W.P. No. 2476/1992. This Court by order dated 05.11.1996 remanded the matter back for fresh consideration of the Assistant Commissioner to record a finding as to whether the land was granted for upset price or free of cost or price lesser than upset price and whether non-alienation condition could have been imposed under such condition, to comply with the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pedda Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR (1993) Kar 551. Further, direction was also given to go into the question of adverse possession and record a finding as to nature of grant.

5. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner has noticed that inspite of several opportunities being given to the learned Counsels who were appearing on behalf of the rival parties, learned Counsels have not presented their arguments or written arguments. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner