Point of law: Conclusion reached in such a case as to the validity of the levy would apply not only to the parties before the Court but the same has to be extended to other cases where similar issue is involved.

ORDER :

The captioned writ petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original grantee seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to forthwith restore peaceful vacant possession of the schedule property in terms of the order dated 25.7.1986 passed by respondent No.3 in No.KSC:ST:122 to 132/79-80 as per Annexure-B.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The father of the petitioners namely Krishna belonged scheduled caste. The authorities granted petition land to the petitioners' father under Rule 43(G) of the Mysuru Land Revenue Rules. The upset price of the land was fixed at Rs.300/-per acre and the land was granted by waiving price of Rs.200/-per acre. On similar terms, one acre land each was granted to twenty other persons belonging to Scheduled Caste.

3. The original grantee during his life time sold the land in favour of respondent No.4. After coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short "PTCL Act") proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the said Act against the father of respondent No.4-Bhoomi Reddy in respect of all ten piece of lands which were subject matter of alienation in contravention of the grant condition. Third respondent-Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 25.7.1986 (Annexure-B) ordered for resumption of land by declaring the transaction in favour of respondent No.4 as null and void. The said order was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act.

4. The purchaser however questioned the order of restoration before this Court in W.P.12518/1987. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order of restoration on the ground that the grant was made on the reduced upset price and therefore, condition of non-alienation provided under Rule 43(G) (4) is not applicable. The order of the learned Single Judge was taken in an appeal before the Division Bench in W.A.No.1481/1991 by some of the Co-grantees of the petitioners' father. State preferred writ appeal in WA.No.2142/1992 assailing the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. 12518/1987. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The review petition filed in CP.No.897/1996 was also dismissed vide order dated 15.2.1999.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would contend that petitioners are not barred from maintaining the present petition and the principles of estoppel or res judicata, in view of the decision rendered between the parties in W.P.12518/1987 and confirmed by the Division Bench in 2142/1992, is not applicable in the light of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Siddagowda Vs. Assistant Commissioner, (2003) 10 SCC 675 case.

6. While vehemently arguing, learned counsel for petitioners pointed out that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.12518/1987 and confirmed by the Division Bench in 2142/1992 is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of PTCL Act and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench does not operate as res judicata. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and others vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, AIR 1971 SC 2355, he would contend that since the earlier law relating to interpretation of grants made under Rule 43(G) of Mysuru Land Revenue Rules, 1960, is altered by subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court and if the transaction is held to be in violation of law prevailing then, the principles of res judicata are not applicable. To buttress his arguments, he has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Nand Ram vs. Jagdish Prasad, 2020 AIR SCW 1884 and Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty, 2018 (5) AIR SCW 3395.

7. Citing the principles and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the jud