CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2021 in W.P.No.35549/2010 (SC-ST).

2. The petitioners had filed the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the first respondent on 18.05.1993 and 25.05.1993, by which the appeal filed by the predecessor in interest of the private respondent had been allowed and the order of the second respondent had been set aside.

3. It was the case of the petitioners that Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah are brothers, being the sons of Dasaiah and were working as bonded labourers under the third respondent - Chaluvegowda. It is stated that Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah were granted 4 acres of land each in Sy.No.35 of Chitanahosahalli Village of Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District vide order of the Tahasildar dated 23.01.1962. The third respondent got his land exchanged in Sy.No.11/1 and Sy.No.11/2 of Pothanahalli village which was purchased by him from the petitioners under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.1959. The Saguvali Chits issued to Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah were produced as Annexure-C and Annexure-D, respectively. It is contended that due to their relationship, Annexure-E/Exchange Deed was entered into on 13.08.1984 by the third respondent with them by which the property of Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah was exchanged for some property belonging to the third respondent.

4. It is contended that since Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah belong to a Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short referred as "PTCL Act") was applicable. They had made applications before the second respondent to restore the property covered by the exchange deed to them. The applications were allowed and Annexures-F and G orders were passed on 31.10.1991 and 22.11.1991, respectively. Chaluvegowda preferred an appeal before the first respondent and after hearing the parties, the order impugned in the writ petition i.e., Annexure-H was passed.

5. It was contended by the petitioners in the writ petition that the finding in Annexure-H to the effect that the transfer was effected 15 years after the original grant and therefore, the second respondent erred in directing the resumption of lands was totally misconceived. Relying on the provisions of Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, it is contended that even in a case, where the transfer is beyond 15 years, the transfer would be illegal and the land would be liable to be resumed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in non-suiting the appellants on the ground of delay since the appellants were not put on notice or heard at the time of passing of the order impugned before the learned Single Judge. It is therefore contended that they were unaware of passing of the order and it was when they came to know about the order that they had challenged the same. It is submitted that the appellants herein are the legal representatives of Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah and that they were not aware of passing of the order or its implications.

7. In support of his contentions, Shri. H. Kantharaj, learned senior counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 3152.

8. Shri. B.S. Raghu Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 to 5, on the other hand, submits that, the instant case is not the one covered by the provisions of PTCL Act, at all and that the Act is not applicable to the case on hand. It is submitted that it is only in cases where grant is made as specified under the provisions of the PTCL Act that the provisions of Section 4 and especially Section 4(2) would be applicable. It is submitted that it is clear from the pleadings on record itself that there was no grant in favour of Thirumalaiah and Thimmaiah and tha