ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN This appeal is challenged against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2022 in W.P.No.2913/2016. The writ petition was filed by respondent No.4 herein challenging the orders passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner as well as respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-F and G respectively. The Petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that land measuring three acres in Sy.No.26/1 (new Sy.No.26/P1) situated at Golluchennappanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District was granted to one Doddasubbaiah by order of the Tahasildar, Chikkaballapura Taluk dated 25.10.1979. It was contended that after completion of the non-alienation period of 15 years, Doddasubbaiah and his legal heirs sold two acres in favour of one Lakshmi, wife of A. Manjunath under registered sale deed dated 09.10.1995. Thereafter, Lakshmi sold the property in favour of the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein by a registered sale deed on 18.01.2001. The legal heirs of the original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short 'the PTCL Act') before Assistant Commissioner as PTCL(Chikka) No.34/2006-07. The application was allowed at Annexure- F by order dated 22.06.2011. Though the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was dismissed on 23.12.2013. The said orders were under challenge in the writ petition.

2. After hearing the parties and considering the contentions advanced, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the original grantee and his legal heirs had sold the property in the year 1995 and that it was after the non-alienation period in the Form-I - Grant certificate i.e., a period of 15 years from the date of grant i.e., 25.10.1979 that the first sale was made. Further, it was found that the writ petitioner had purchased the land in 2001 and that the proceedings of the PTCL Act were initiated belatedly. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka , the application for restoration of land was held to be belated and the writ petition was allowed.

3. When the matter was taken up today, there was no appearance for the appellants before this Court. However, we notice from the memorandum of appeal that the grounds urged are that though the grant was on 25.10.1979, the grant certificate was issued only on 20.06.1980. It is submitted that since the SC-ST (PTCL) Act came into effect on 01.01.1979, the first sale which took place on 09.10.1995 was in violation of the provision of the Act i.e., specifically Section 4(2) thereof. It is further contended that though there was a non-alienation condition mentioned in the grant, as per Section 4(1) of the SC-ST (PTCL) Act, there is a permanent prohibition for alienation of land granted under the provisions of the said Act. It is further contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case referred supra is not applicable since the petition was filed in the year (2020) 14 SCC 232

2006-07 and that the inordinate delay cannot be attributed to the applicants in filing the petition before the Assistant Commissioner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the land in question was never granted to Doddasubbaiah and that the land had been sold for upset price and had been purchased by Doddasubbaiah as is evident from Annexure-A1. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the land was purchased by Doddasubbaiah after fixing of the upset price, it is not the land granted under the darkhast rules and would not come under the provisions of SC-ST (PTCL) Act at all. It is further submitted that the non-alienation clause was for a period of 15 years and that the land was initially sold after the non-alienation