ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard learned advocate Sri. H.C. Kumaraswamy for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 impugning the order of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24900 of 2022 dated 29.08.2023.

3. The lands bearing Sy.No.91/1 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas, Sy.No.92/2 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas and Sy.No.93 measuring 4 acre 37 guntas were originally granted in favour of Thimmaiah S/o Venkataiah and Venkataiah S/o Venkataiah under Depressed Class Rules. The said granted lands were sold by the original grantee in favour of Mavanallaiah, Gangaiah S/o Chikkarangaiah and Gangaiah S/o Byataiah, in violation of the grant order. The son of original grantee filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’ for short] before respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 by order dated 31.08.1981 restored the lands in favour of the original grantee. The order of restoration was confirmed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. The orders of respondent Nos.2 and 3 were challenged in Writ Petitions No.13798 of 1992, 13799 of 1992 and 13800 of 1992. The writ petitions came to be dismissed by order dated 30.09.1993.

4. The lands were restored to the original grantee. The petitioner purchased the said lands from the legal heirs of original grantee namely, Ramachandraiah, H. V Gopalaiah, H.V. Nagaraj and H.V. Krishnappa under registered sale deed dated 09.02.1994 with due permission from the Government. The legal representatives filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. Respondent No.3 by order dated 23.06.2008 rejected the application. In appeal, respondent No.2 confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal by order dated 01.12.2014. The order dated 23.06.2008 by respondent No.3 rejecting the application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act has reached finality.

5. The appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act before respondent No.3 in the year 2020-21. Respondent No.3 allowed the application by order dated 14.10.2022. The said order was the subject matter of writ in the impugned judgment at the instance of purchaser.

6. Learned Single Judge by considering that one of the original grantees filed an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act in the year 2006 before respondent No.3, which was dismissed by order dated 23.06.2008, against which, further appeal was filed before respondent No.2 in PTCL No.13/2008-09 and the said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 01.12.2014, held similar petition on the same ground filed by the original writ petitioner is not maintainable.

7. Learned Single Judge held that the second application on similar set of facts and grounds after lapse of 19 years is not maintainable when the first application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act was rejected by order dated 27.08.1992. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of respondent No.3 dated 14.10.2022, wherein the application under Section 5 of PTCL Act was allowed.

8. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that any person aggrieved by an order can prefer an application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. It is contended that as the lands were re-granted in favour of the appellant, the application for restoration is maintainable. It is further contended that as the earlier application was not by the present appellant, the order of rejection is not binding.

9. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the appeal papers.

10. The lands in question were allotted at the earliest point of time. The said lands were subjected to petition under Section 5 of the PTCL Act. At the instance of the original grantee, the order of restoration was passed. The said orders of restoration were confirmed in Writ Petitions No.13798 of 19