Point of law: Court do not find any error in the aforesaid findings of the learned Single Judge calling for interference in the present appeal.

JUDGMENT :

This intra-court appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2022 passed in W.P No.114449/2019 (KLR-RES) wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No.3 was allowed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that, the Respondent No.3 invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking prayer to issue writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 22.08.2015 and 12.09.2019 passed by respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, at Annexure-A and Annexure-B to the writ petition.

3. It is averred that the land bearing Sy.No.5/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Alla Nagar, Koppal Taluk and District was purchased by the respondent No.3 from the appellant vide registered sale deed 09.03.2005. It is further averred that the appellant who has sold the property to the respondent No.3, had acquired the property vide grant order dated 04.09.1978 and the appellant belongs to the deprived community.

4. It is also averred that the appellant has initiated the proceedings under Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’, for short). The respondent No.1 vide order dated 22.08.2015 has held that the sale transaction between the parties is in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.08.2015, the respondent No.3 has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 22.08.2015 before the respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Koppal. The respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 12.09.2019 by confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.08.2015. The respondent No.3 has assailed the order dated 22.08.2015 of the respondent No.1 and 12.09.2019 of the respondent No.2 in W.P.No.114449/2019. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders. In the above factual matrix the present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Counsel Sri. Mrutyunjaya S. Hallikeri, for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge has committed error in setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that there is delay in initiation of proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge suffers from grave infirmities. The learned Single Judge ought to have considered the fact that the respondent no.3 had played fraud on the grantee and got the sale deed executed in the guise of mortgage deed and further his request to enter his name in revenue records was rejected as the same was in contravention of provisions of PTCL act by the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that the fraud played by the purchaser in getting sale deed executed in their favour vitiates all the proceedings hence, sought to interfere in the present appeal.

6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Anand R. Kolli for respondent No.3 supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that learned Single Judge has considered the case on hand keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Laxmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2020) 14 SCC 232 and has rightly concluded that the initiation of proceedings under the provisions of PTCL Act is belated one. He seeks for the dismissal of the appeal.

7. Learned H.C.G.P. Sri V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the appellant is not diligent in pursuing his rights, he has approached the Assistant Commissioner after lapse of more than seven years, learned Single Judge has considered the settled legal position of law and allowed the writ petition which does not call for any interference in the present appeal.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the lear