Family transactions involving partitions do not violate the PTCL Act, but outside transactions without government approval are invalid.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

Learned counsel submits that memo for retirement is filed on behalf of respondents 5, 7, 12 and 19.

2. Memo is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel is permitted to retire.

4. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the 1^st respondent - Deputy Commissioner dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 22.01.2010 passed by the 2^nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner.

5. In terms of the impugned orders, the properties in question were ordered to be resumed in favour of the family members of the original grantee.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property bearing Sy.No.995B(old) and 597B1/B2a/1A (new) measuring 3 acres 90 cents was granted to late V Mareppa and Sy.No.995(old)597B/1/B2/3 measuring 3.9 acres was granted to V Lakshmamma, property bearing Sy.No.995(old) and 597B/1/B2/2 (new) measuring 3.9 acres was granted to V Nagappa and property bearing Sy.No.995(old) and 597B/1/B2/1(new) measuring 2.4 acres was granted to V Parvatamma, and property Sy.No.994(Old) and 597B/1/B2/4 (new) measuring 2.2 acres was granted to V Venkatheshulu. All these grants were made on 20.05.1960. The total extent of the granted land is 16 acres 40 guntas.

7. It is not in dispute that V Mareppa was the propositus, Lakshmamma was his wife, Nagappa, Venkateshulu and Parvatamma are the children. In addition to the aforementioned three children, the couple had three more children viz., Nagamma, Sanjevamma and Thimappa.

8. The dispute is raised in PTCL No.3/07-08 and 4/07-08 in respect of Sy.Nos.995/B and 995/D by Venkateshulu alleging that the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act, 1978) have been violated and the lands have to be resumed in favour of the grantee.

9. One more dispute was raised in PTCL No.7/08-09 by two outsiders viz., - respondents No.5 and 6 in respect of entire 16 acres 40 cents of land alleging violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978. All the three cases are clubbed together and the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the impugned order has held that these transactions are in violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, 1978 and ordered resumption of land.

10. The Deputy Commissioner has also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to Annexures - A1 and A2 which are the two registered sale deeds dated 24.07.2004 in favour of the petitioner would urge that 2 acres of land in each of the sale deeds are purchased by the petitioner and petitioner's vendor had purchased the properties under registered sale deed dated 09.11.1992.

12. It is urged that the sale transaction dated 09.11.1992 is not disputed by the contesting respondents and thus, would urge that the sale transactions in favour of the petitioner could not have been held to be in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, 1978 as there is inordinate delay on the part of the grantees to seek resumption of the lands. In support of his contention, learned counsel would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka , (2017) SCC online 1862.

13. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that there were various transactions among the family members starting from 1992 and those transactions are not questioned by anyone. The respondent/State has not objected to the said transactions and later, the properties are purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005-06 and the