This intra-court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the

Karnataka High Courts Act challenging the order dated

03.02.2020, passed in W.P.Nos.26005-26007 of 2012 by

the learned Single Judge.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are

as under:

The land bearing Sy.No.251/1a and 1b measuring 5

acres situated at Nagaramgere Village, Challakere Taluk,

Chitradurga District was granted in favour of one

Kariyappa on temporary lease under grow more food

scheme in the year 1943 the saguvali chit was issued on

11.12.1955 with a condition not to alienate the property

for a period of 15 years. The original grantee namely

Kariyappa sold the land in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6

under

a

registered

sale

deed

dated

30.10.1967.

Respondent No.4 to 6 got converted the said land from

- 4 -

agriculture

to

non-agriculture

vide

order

dated

08.12.1986. The respondent 4 to 6 formed a sites and sold

the same in favour of different persons. Respondent Nos.4

to 6 retained some land to an extent of land 1 acre 20

guntas. Respondent No.3 suo moto initiated proceedings

under Section 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain

Lands) Act, 1978 (for short ‘the PTCL Act’) in the year

1996 for resumption of land. Respondent No.3 has

dropped the proceedings on the ground that the act is not

applicable

to

the

land

in

question.

The

legal

representatives of the original grantee filed appeal before

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 vide order dated

20.06.2012 allowed the appeal in part and ordered to

resumed the land in favour of legal representatives of the

original grantee. Respondent Nos.4 to 6 aggrieved by the

order and other petitioners in W.P.No.1081/2015 i.e., the

owners of sites purchased from respondent Nos.4 to 6 filed

a writ petition challenging order passed by respondent

No.2. The learned Singe Judge after hearing the parties

- 5 -

allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by

respondent No.2. The appellants aggrieved by the order

passed by the learned Single Judge, has filed this writ

appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent

Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

though there is a delay in initiating a proceedings under

Section 4 of the PTCL Act, the learned Single Judge would

have provided an opportunity to the appellant to explain

the delay in initiating proceedings under the PTCL Act. He

submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an

error in passing the impugned order. Hence on these

grounds, he prayed to allow the writ appeal.

5.

Learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

supports the impugned order.

- 6 -

6.

Perused

the

records

and

considered

the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7.

The land in question was granted to one

Kariyappa on 25.11.1955. Kariyappa sold the land in

favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6 under a registered sale

deed dated 30.10.1967. The PTCL Act came into force on

01.01.1979. During the year 1996 respondent No.3 suo

moto initiated the proceedings under Section 4 of the PTCL

Act for resumption of land on the ground that the said land

was a granted to Kariyappa as he belongs to scheduled

caste and Kariyappa had violated the conditions mentioned

in the saguvali chit. Respondent No.2 vide order dated

23.04.1999, dropped the proceedings on the ground that

act is not applicable to the land in question. The legal

representatives of the original grantee filed an appeal

before respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 allowed the

appeal and ordered to resume the land in favour of the

legal representatives of the original grantee. As observed

above, admittedly, the sale deed was executed on

- 7 -

20.10.1967 and act came into force on 01.01.1979.

Respondent No.3 initiated suo moto proceedings under the

PTCL Act in the year 1996. Thus, there is a delay of 16

years in initiating the suo moto proceedings by respondent

No.3.

8.

In vie